Cultural Integrity and Marginality Along the South Fork of the Salmon River, Idaho by S.J

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

S. J. Rebillet for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdiscipli- nary Studies in Anthropology, Anthropology, and History presented on May 2, 1983. Title: Cultural Integrity and Marginality Along the Sourth Fork of the Salmon River, Idaho

Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: Dr. Thomas C. Hogg t

This work examines the varied populations which have inhabited the South Fork region from prehistoric times to the present. It disclosed that even though almost nc archaeology has been done in the area, data from contiguous regions suggest that persistent and careful archaeological investigation should reveal valuable and informative sites dating back at least as far as the oldest sites currently known in Idaho. This work also shows that, notwithstanding basic ethnic differences, a temporal continuum of over 12,000 years, and the fact of an isolated mountain habitat, various human populations did not live marginal existences dependent upon periodic excur- sions outside the mountain area. Rather, their lives were comfortable, satisfying, and amply provided for year round from within their mountain habitat. Various populations maintained an overall, preferred cultural emphasis on positive isolationism which permeated their distinct cultures and affected in a similar manner their relationships and dealings with outsiders, whether these outsiders were culturally similar or culturally different in origin from themselves. o Copyright by S. J. Rebillet May 2, 1983 All Rights Reserved Cultural Integrity and Marginality Along the South Fork of the Salmon River, Idaho by S.J. Rebiliet

A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies

Completed May 2, 1983

Commencement June 1983 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy

Professor of Anthropology in cge of major Redacted for Privacy Associate Professor of Anthropology in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy Professor of History in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy

Chairman of department of Anthropology

Redacted for Privacy

Dean of Graduate hool

Date thesis is presented May 2, 1983

Typed by Pamela Walker and Sue Cruse for S. J. Rebiliet DEDICATION

To my family: Pam, whose good cheer, encouragement and companionship have kept me going even--and especially- - through the rough spots; Jill and Katy--daughers of the backcountry, who aren't sure just what all this fuss has been about but who figure that time will give it all some meaning.

and

To Dr. Thomas C. Hogg who by living anthropology day in and day out has taught me the real meaning of my profession. His hours of advice and encouragement have certainly made this a document I can feel proud of.

and finally

To the South Fork and all us savages who have ever called it Home. ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS

During the course of this project,I have recieved many kinds of help from many people. Eachin its own way, was invaluable to me. It isnow the "ninth hour"and for any person whose name may not appear here, I doask pardon. As I am sure many others have been before, this list willunfortunately be incomplete; but my sincere gratitudegoes out to all persons named and un-named whose kindnessI here acknowledge. First and foremost, I must thankthose two spartan ladies who--puttuing aside theirown busy lives- -typed this document in five short days: Sue Cruse and Pam Walker. Theirbeing my Mom and companion inno way diminishes the task they have done. All the members ofmy comittee in one way and another have not only aided but encouragedme along the way. Dr. Tom McClintock initially encouragedme to see Dr. Merle Wells, of the Idaho State Historical Societywho subsequently providedme with both the opportunity and thegrant to research this project. Dr. David Brauner's patience, adviceand assistance at all stages of the archaeological work enabledme to accomplish that stage of the work with assurance. And finally, I had the great good fortune to be able to do this workunder the auspices of Dr. Thomas C. Hogg.

Outside of my own department,a great many people here at Oregon State have helped inone way or another. Some of those people are: Joyce Greiner, Al and SallyWong, Nat Clark, Harriet Sisson, Joy Mills, Russ Dix, Roger Frichette,Susannah Tenney, and Mrs. M. Meehan, to namea few. A very special thanks goes to thosewonderful ladies at our OSU Copy Center, Mo, Susan, and Karen and theirco-workers. They have greatly aidedme along every step of the way. The same is true of Mimi Hjersman at theGraduate Students' office whose advice was often above and beyond thecall of duty. Isaac and Debra Barner have beeninvaluable allies throughout in many phases of this job.Besides being close freinds, they have helped me to bridgemy gap between archaeology and cultural anthropology. This is no mean feat.

Terry and Edith Hope of Boise,Idaho gave me not only their gracious hospitality during muchof my field work, butmany wonderful hours of just "kickingthe ideas around." Edgar and Molly Haarhoff, also of Boise,also extended their hospitality and freindship tome.

Besides the valued old freinds inIdaho, I must expressmy

gratitude to all the new friends Imade during my field work-- namely, my "informants." They were many, and to all ofthem I am doubly grateful for having made thisa "living" document. One of those people wasno longer in Idaho, but in Albuquerque, New Mexico--Mr. Lavelle Thompson. Mr. Thompson is "special" for two reasons: first, we both sharedthe same fine experience of having lived and workedon the original Smith Ranch, although at a difference of 30years in time. And second, being a current resident of Albuquerque, andexpressing a des'ire to visit withme about this project, gaveme the opportunity of taking my Dad along on what would have been a tedious trip ofsome 2,500 miles, and reuniting him with my uncles after 25years. The whole trip was one exciting experience!

Yvonne Smith helped with the photographyby doing both the close-up shoths and developing the blackand whites for me. And our neighbors Tamar and Pam helped out immensly inthese last hectic days in numerous ways.

Last, but not at all least, I want to thankthe many members of my large family who have all doneso much for me that Icould do this thing. Naming them all would take another wholepage, so I just want to say to each of them whether theirname be Cruse, Prairie, Long, Bowman, Harris, Pequeno,Lagomarsino--whichever and whoever you are--THANKS! GRACIAS! Especiallyyou, Charlie, my Grandad. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction 1

II. General Prehistory 12 Introduction 12 Prehistoric Cultural Divisions of Central Idaho 15 Adjacent Area Studies and Sites 19 The Neothermal Sequences: The Anathermal 27 The Altithermal 36 The Medithermal 42 III. Prehistory of the South Fork Locality 47 Untested Sites on the South and Middle Forks 53 Rock Art 71 South Fork and Middle Fork Comparisons 73 Conclusions on Prehistory 76

IV. Proto-Historic and Historic Indian Use of the Area 80

V. Non-Indian Populations 95 The Chinese 97 Euro-American Ranchers 107 The Sheepeater Campaign 115 The Last Century 119 VI. Summary and Conclusions 132 VII. Implications for Cultural Isolation 138 Bibiography 146 Appendix 156 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. South Fork locality 2

2. South Fork country 3

3. Coming down to the river 4 4. South Fork below rockshelter cove 5

5. South Fork meander looking north 6

6. South Fork pool; vicinity of pictograph 7

7. Map of general study area 13

8. Cultural regions of the greater Northwest: T. C. Hogg, 1981 17

9. Comparative chronological climatic sequences 20 10. Map of sites: 20,000 - 10,000 B. P. 24

11. Red Fish Overhang site: insert for Figure 10 25

12. Map of sites: 10,000 - 7,500 B. P. 29

13. Map of sites: 7,500 - 7,000 B. P. 32

14. Map of sites: 7,000 - 4,500 B. P. 38

15. Sheepeater Battleground site: insert for Figure 14 39

16. Map of sites: 4,500 - 2,000 B. P. 43

17. Map of sites: 2,000 - historic present 46

18. South Fork and Middle Fork region 48

19. Map of South and Middle Fork area sites 50

20. Mill Flat looking down-river (north) 59

21. Mill Flat looking up-river (south) 60

22. "Biface" from Mill Flat, lower South Fork 61

23. Trail into pictograph cove (lookingsouth) 62 24. Pictograph/Rockshelter cove (facing river) 63

25. "Indian Rock" (pictograph) 64

26. Figures on pictograph: note smoke damage, upper right 65

27. Rockshelter near pictograph 66

28. Portion of rockshelter area 67 69 29. End-battered cobble; South Fork rockshelter 30. Cryptocrystalline "drill"; South Fork rockshelter 70 31. Artifacts from Mill Flat/Rockshelter, lower South Fork 72

32. Proposed Tukudeka homeland and area of neutrality between Tukudeka and Nez Perce 84

33. Present-day Hays Station 102 34. Trace of old road to Chinese cabins of Hays Station 104 35. Record of 1866 quartz claim: S. S. Smith, J. W. Poe, et al 110

36. 1879 South Fork map showing some of the ranches 113

37. Early transitional ranches: 1860s to 1880s 116 38. Established ranches: 1890s to 1920s 127 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Adjacent Area Sites: 20,000 - 10,000 BP 23

II. Adjacent Area Sites: 10,000 - 7,500 BP 28

III. Adjacent Area Sites: 7,500 - 7,000 BP 31

IV. Adjacent Area Sites: 7,000 - 4,500 BP 37

V. Adjacent Area Sites: 4,500 - 2,000 BP 43

VI. Adjacent Area Sites: 2,000 BP - historic present 45 CULTURAL INTEGRITY AND MARGINALITY ALONG THE SOUTH FORK OF THE SALMON RIVER,IDAHO

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This thesis will focus on the SouthFork of the Salmon River in central Idaho. The South Fork--as it will bedesignated throughout this paper--is a major river in theSalmon River drainage (Figure 1). According to Boreson (1979:5), "The South Fork and its tributaries provide a complexand dynamic critical habitat for the anadramous summer Chinooksalmon and steelhead trout, plus a resident fishery." Further on, she cites Richards (1963:3) as saying that "On the basis of the reddcounts, the South Fork proper is the most important,single Chinook spawning stream in the Salmon river[sic] drainage." The headwaters of the South Fork areapproximately 50 miles due east and slightly south of Cascade,Idaho, the county seat of Valley County. Its mouth is approximately68 miles north of the of this river. headwaters. There is no road traveling the length Some 48 miles east of Riggins, Idaho,the main Salmon River makes a deep southerly bend; themouth of the South Fork is at the nadir of this bend. The last 20 miles of the lower South Fork lie in Idaho County, whose countyseat is Grangeville, some 54 miles north of Riggins. South Fork country is steep andrough--the river having cut for itself an extensive canyonwhich is deepest at the lower (north) end. The river itself is, in mostplaces, swift and relatively deep, with intermittentpools where the salmon spawn

(Figures 2-6). The drainage is a natural habitatfor many species of game, among which are elk(Cervus elaphus), deer (Odocoileussp.), (Canis cougar (Fellsconcolor), bobcat (Lynx canadensis), coyote latrans), bear (Euarctos americanus), occasionalotter (Lutra 2

tMA1N S Rigginsmod 0 N

.r7olirritoPeek

.86Wri0011 P..1 7806

Ms EIrids K 9210

Peek '\)g S INi r *1 'VS11 rlo6r7 rind ran ak ) 5

.1.8At\

Thrall*

116S7

Knox 0911MOrn rat OW ST98 After U.S.G.S. State of Idaho Oro Mtn, 1 inch = 1 al vr 77S9 vat 1 approximately se Peek Cascade 8696 8 miles 4790 041*/ Pewit TPOI

K :

Figure 1 South Fork locality 3

Figure 2 South Fork country Figure 3Coming down to the river 5

Figure 4South Fork below rockshelter cove 6

Figure5 South Fork meander looking north Figure 6 South Fork pool; vicinity of pictograph 8 canadensis), and beaver (Castor canadensis), badger(Taxidea taxus), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), and sheep(Ovis canadensis), and more rarely, moose (Aloes americanus). Native fowl include eagles(Aquila chrysaetos), hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), chukkars (Alectorischukar), grouse (Bonasa umbellus), and screech (Otus asio), barn (Tytoalba), and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus). A wide variety of smaller birds includes mountain bluebird (Sialiacurrucoides), ravens (Corvus corax), robins (Turdus migratorius), hummingbirds(Archilochus alexandri), woodpeckers (Melanerpeserythrocephalus), and the notorius "camprobber" (Picapica). Smaller mammals include packrats(Cricetidae neotoma), mice (Mus musculus), squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris), weasels(Mustela nivalis), raccoons (Procyon lotor), marmots(Marmota flaviventris), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), porcupines(Erethizon dorsatum), badger (Meles meles), and, in the higherelevations, the elusive and clever little coney(Ochotona princeps). There is also a variety of small snakes and lizards inaddition to the rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) and bullsnake(Pituophis melanoleucus), both common to this area. Arable lands along the South Fork areextremely rich and the river enjoy a fairly fertile. Most of the settled places along temperate climate. Their elevation is only two to three thousand feet compared with summitelevations along the river averaging approximately 7,500 to8,000 feet. The average growing season lasts from mid-April orearly May to late September or early October. Local people often say that "Just about any seed dropped into SouthFork land will grow and produce." Wild huckleberries(Gaylussacia ericaceae) are abundant on some of the upperslopes. Throughout the area such edible and useful plants as chokecherries(Prunus virginiana), elderberries (Sambucus erulea), service berries(Amelanchier alnifolia), wild purshiana), and several rose (Rosarubiginosa), chittum (Rhamnus varieties of edible mushrooms(Psalliota campestris) can be found. 9

The forests are predominantly yellow pine(Pinus ponderosa), but there are also lodgepole pine(Pinus contorta), some Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpusmontonus), and isolated instances of the yew(Taxus brevifolia). Yew trees, according to some informants, were preferredand sought after for arrow making by Indian inhabitants. Syringa (Philadelphus coronarius) is very common, along with a good variety of grasses

and bushes. As a past inhabitant of the South Fork for some years,I have felt that the area and its people may be nearlyunique in the latter-day twentieth century United States. To determine whether my feelings stemmed merelyfrom a personal bias and pride or from something more substantial, I embarked upon athorough study of the region and the people. The work focused both on the historic period and, as far as possible, into prehistorictimes. To pursue this research, it was my good fortune to obtain aconsiderable grant from the Idaho State Historical Societythrough Dr. Merle W. Wells. The work employed two basic researchmethods: 1) to search out and interview past and currentSouth Fork inhabitants, particularly the "old-timers"; and2) to review archival and all other materials concerning the area. Within the latter category I included the following: pertinent archaeological records from areas (both geographical andcultural) peripheral to the South Fork as well as those of theSouth Fork proper; written materials concerning the "Indian Era" of the region,both pre- and post - contact; a detailed and extensive study of cartographicmaterials on the area; both white andChinese mining histories and records; works of the local historians; ForestService and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) histories and documents;past and present news- papers; and formal land records in countyoffices. The main questions on which thisthesis is based deal with the peoples' relationship to the river andthe cultural significance of isolation in the South Fork region. The first question is: 10

Can it be established that there has existed throughoutboth the known and the hypothetically-defined histories ofhuman existence in this South Fork region a definitive andbonding relationship between the inhabitants (regardless of culturalbackground) and "The River"? (see glossary). The second is: Can it be shown that, because of this relationship to the river and itsenvirons, the area provides a cultural refugefor a specific type of people? The third question is:Has this refuge circumstance prevailed over time to affect different cultures in the sameway? The extreme paucity of formal written informationabout the South Fork is staggering. This fact alone lends some plausibility to the theory of extreme isolationism on the partof the inhabitants. Idaho's last "great Indian war" waswaged in this area. The old mining town of Warren, whose reputation once rivalled that of the Yukon, is only 15 miles to thewest of the South Fork proper. Immediately following Idaho's 1885 - 1886 "rid the country of the Chinese" campaign, vast numbersof Chinese are known to have inhabited the Warren District. And yet rarely, and then only with skimming reference, is theSouth Fork discussed in reference to these and other historical incidents. My greatest asset for this research was my ownintimate knowledge of the area and the people. From 1968 to 1972 I lived on the South Fork on theoriginal Smith Ranch, and for a while on the main Salmon River at Mackay Bar. On the South Fork, we operated the ranch as a working ranch. In the fall we had a hunting operation in the Mosquito Peak areaand down into the Chamberlain Basin country north and east ofthe ranch. Everything necessary for the hunting camps wastrucked in to the ranch, then trucked and packed on horses and mulesinto the even more remote

base camps. For a while we logged and operated asteam-powered sawmill along with the ranching. In the summer and fall of 1970, I carried the mail for the route thatserved an area from Warren to a portion of the lower SouthFork and Elk Creek. In May, 1970, I was flown out toMcCall to await the birth of 11 my older daughter. She was born on the 18th, and a few days later we flew back in to the ranch. She is the last child born to the Smith Ranch. Having once been one of the "River People" makes the task of defining the "South Fork Mystique" at once less obscure and yet infinitely more difficult. Nevertheless, without this advantage I might have been caught up in perpetuating any one or all of the numerous--and sometimes blatant--sterotypic errors I encountered during my research. This research was aimed, then, at testing the validity of the following hypothesis: That regardless of ethnic or economic backgrounds or eras ,of time, people of the SouthFork area can be termed a common cultural type ofpeople who share a deep affinity for the river and its environs and who developed and maintained a strongly self-sufficient and isolated sub-culture. The following work is intended to clarify and substantiate this statement. 12

CHAPTER II GENERAL PREHISTORY

Introduction The working hypothesis for this paper is that the central Idaho mountains in general, and the South Fork of the Salmon River in particular, hold invaluable evidence to the earliest peoples in the west, and this evidence will tend to support rather than refute the view that mountainous regions are not mere marginal refuge areas but have been year-round human habitations with unique cultural features for thousands of years. The purpose of the following archaeological disucssion is not to look intensely at any one archaeological site or group of sites within the study area(Figure 7), but rather to look generally at archaeology within the central Idaho intermontane area (Figure 7), in order to attempt to hypoth- esize what might be found archaeologically in the South Fork country based on existing evidence. Because of the limited amount of systematic archaeology, either attempted or accomplished along the South Fork of the Salmon River, it was necessary to examine general prehistoric materials from central Idaho. Centeral Idaho sites were first placed in chronological order to illustrate the fact that upland settlement patterns are present as far back in time as is indicated by the current archeological evidence. In addition to those sites which have been dated, other sites were mapped which have been recorded but not tested; been recorded and tested by not dated; or have simply been noted. The only other technical data used in this overview were general projectile point descriptions, somecareful and supportive map work, and the general geographical featuresof the area. No attempt was made to work with soil evaluation other than Mazama ash which is noted in a general and comparative manner only. 13

.:41:-.:',F. 1144,....;...W ? IL: `':.44,..-.-...,. ...,,, 'I..' - . .... '"'15.Z.1,N,FZ.itt....."...h "...... ,.., ,.. , ,...... , ...40., ,...)...'S.3 j.:....1... e. ,'.... :4f41-P..;' Le . ..:.,--e. ,,:, ...... , ...... ,! ,L.v.. , ;..i...,;.,-,...... ,, A; ,., ...., . , ,,.....;,1, .4..6 ..f, ii...-1:4...V..A -.-...r.q .:0,7-ey.,121;,:,..-z;.,, - t..,s - .1..-. '...-;-,,, -,-,-.4 ,... r,; .^..4....,+.,14..14{.:.7..., . .. -,,...: a, :.-..). t ,a1.- tti!l..ii;,!"Ns. . ,x .`...; . 1...,: in..z..41.:- .1--,-*::,. ...-- 'q1..---..:. 'Y ., ../': . ... CC , ...t, .t!, ..'46 -1, - ev'ziey,,1:77,-....e - . +' Cs \.:*; k4:14747: ...t.-.1^Y },t;Vs' N, , eirt -"7. 1:..'1.0;a oA. ' ,/ " ,; .

' . - . - - . . --A- 4.7 ....YIN: L 1. s',0". 4, 1, .1. k er,I"- :71"::.

" `-'-"

.; . .,f), 1 08 ; k : !' 4 , 4 r- t -"" ec -. omiZt-.., .."-;:` '.67+. ,, tZ NZ:;,AV- . ,J,`;' v.. -;-'4,tl dzt. .'c'Z ,..,. ..--.:,,,-_.-,.;....:', 4, -i - `4:4 i i...-'(-,..e:',..,'"It41%,- ;4":Ifti\v. rl'r.,...',,.to31., ''1"-. ;.:---- 4*.ef:!. , '':.4:- ''..:-''*:.*-r1r.t.":'. 7 --_. 75 "Tr. C,,',;"'":,.4,:';:7. 7- '...kRiti.'i'... 1.-.1,`,7,-; " C.,: ;'..:'..'.ittr.' ::,., t r' ....'' ;0,1; .?" ':".174;.,...::::r:''.'"7 ..".P16 -.--- :1,..,T.../ ....;.'....:.}.; . '-'',.....:,4. I. ,A.A -,.....,-;,-.4,: .:.' .....,,... ,':.?. ,...,,.. 0 tr...": ' .' I ...; ,-..-:,4031'-:1-i.'. .t "," . t,7 ' tz%; 55 ts Z " 1:'"ot.%.,...... ,..\ ..,. r* .."1....' .. ' ' 3 " ".. i...... -,:,..i'.. . - .,,:fleaatt ..., I . 44'. -:4",;',. ,-7...... :s , 4,, .....) 1 *."'t-c, ,-, .7...... 4i, .%11.....!...... ,, ....-.it ..,7:,-4:-..-.. .i.. ..' I.,t';'.."....t...'?.',...%.'i=-.. , If .;., ..,-1.4:,,,;;A.t.;;v-7,),.:-.- 11))4ft,,IAT.etilt , :".-e);'ff.,.s, -.4 .1.1:1,;'!.,i I ..!- if....A,.. ., .r, '''..",....r % ''':t.--' Ltvi- l'sZr"': ..:' , .! 1 .,...... ,,i.,, ,..- i,,.... ;,,,... Ak .7.;,.:;;,0,-,,....;:'-\ '.;.".....-5.!tr ,-4,- 1:::r.r..zittv .:A..,; ".,t '.---..04'./..-1, . ..;:::;: ,}4$4,1443.*---i.,r1,,%:,-;.-1,/31.:13 14- ....:7)i., I".'''' :i SL '-,..., .1...., - i, 1 L N. , , ...:'''-'- ,-..1"i,1-1.- ogAL.:.: f.---:,-, '' 7.' .." , . '4....+11.1ti,,,11,'.1. 'T". k, . ( . -t...... ,!1. %).% ...., .- , ....., rs...M ;,...,:?..1.r...c:,a,; A i,,! A.0.; ,,, -- -;:---...... - _.,,-"' ..i--.-,..,-.-.^12:,,'.7VNT-i st, . - - sj., -.'4',.".-e}, ,.1_.. . \::_, , . . N.'s,: !.1t,'"'.. 0-7'' 7".' j afe"''' VY 4' .1 a 1'057.. ...,\:'\,,,,I. * fe pC... :.:..,-...,-.-..:,..,;?.. ' ..... ,.r ...--- rr `..-1-.`74;.,)1T-..-VA447 . ... L ,,,. cf ./..:4,,,, . . ,....eint.,:vf, / %,....--, ,.. ,,,,...,,::::://14... -S;A, . , . . . . - ,-..:,,_-:.#'-..P.,- _ V /;ws-,- 4.twNi 1. . . ;.-:-.'--''.".f..;;.:.--,,.,1,.- -, ,:,,,,f.,. , r:,...'''. ''W..;.,rl`.7:;- -.. . ---7,..rFt,...... 7 .'.:::-..7...:-; iN::::..\,A1, iil---"\-.,-rie--'"4-i- 1...i14-2-1::::4..4.::7",.1-.777,-f-P.2; ..... ,...... ,,,..,,,,,...,-.-..0 '1/414 7- ..,...V.I...:.,,,,,..- . 1. 1"..:1,. :: - , . ..1'' ...... -4...., :.!;. "74,-.,,,,, . :-,,vii....,,....'-..., 3 .1):", so..1..- .t 4'7.1-:7'' It Sr I :- ' 't.L ;...'f; :1::".:, . .:s. .. 7" 4:...., ...Trr.', '16.'11 0.,... .- ...::-.Z.:i...... 1... . , ;.; ...,-L...... t. , ,., 1.- . ...-s,----,,,,....11:;:... -*""..1'-'*--:'_ '..117..\11.'''''t' .... .? .;-.k..--..: .r. . : r - . - rm ,,, .4"...... '''',' './.- 1,,,, ". ',--... .!...- ..ii .... ,1,,./,, .-1,.. ,,,, :n ...... -..-LA ; 6...Z7k . ti,....;',...... , 5.... .V /.. .1' ' ..' ...... ,/.lt -. .6;;.: 7 t ft.:-Yj..._"(41 '''' '' ' .4. 4.-'..4...t.. ,

2.4,..inj...iAtrer[rrirt izi.: 194I....:.:. .,,,i " J5' ''.'s' ...41K:';`'," ,: . if,^1.,..:.. /.;;),..t ly -1 , ,:.:s. .a '.',...... ',;-' d! '.. %.,- , -, ? . 546 fr- 1:' Figure 7May of' general studyarea 14 Before embarking on the prehistorical information for this thesis, I would like to step briefly outside the traditional format in order to pay tribute to a man I never knew, yet whose personality in general, and a single theory in particular, provided me with a good portion of the impetus needed to accomplish this part of the task. That man is Mr. Itaru Ina. Mr. Ina was born in the United States but educated in Japan and came to this country as a young man prior to World War II. Here he met and married his wife. It was while awaiting the birth of their daughter that the United States entered the war. The family was placed in an internment camp for Japanese-Americans, and it was in one of these "camps" that the daughter, my friend, was born. During the first part of his internment, Mr. Ina was in Topaz, Utah, in that part of the country archaeologists call the "Upper Great Basin." Mr. Ina was a religious leader and an artist, and a thoughtful and observant man. During the time he was in this area, while walking around the "camp" he noticed and began to collect projectile points. In time he built up a beautiful collection which is now in the possession of his elder grandson. Among this collection is a tiny, very minute and flawless sidenotched obsidian point. As he pondered these relics and the peoples who had made them, he particularly considered this very small, delicate piece. It was his belief that points such as this were not used in the mundane process of hunting but rather were very meticulously crafted by young men to impress the family of a preferred lady with their skills. They were gifts. In this day and age of scrambling after scientific advancement, when archaeologists are obsessed with evidence from their sites indicating new or changing "technologies" of prehistoric peoples, it is good to stop and take hold of actualities. We must never lose sight of the fact that in all ages, the people dealt with are more than just the few stone "artifacts" throughwhich we must see them. They dealt with each other, and some of what has been left 15 for us to see must be understood as evidence of this fact as well.

Prehistoric Cultural Divisions of Central Idaho It has taken historians and later anthropologists two centuries to recognize and address themselves to the fact that most indigenous North American histories, languages, and knowledge of traditional territorial rights had been lost and that the remainder were teetering on the threshold of extinction. Now, feverish attempts are being made to culturo-geographically map the land as it was before the times of theEuropeans. Studies of the literature pertinent to the central Idaho region reveal an ambiguity in the traditional native territorial designations as proposed by various noted anthropologists. This ambiguity appears to stem from nothing more than the preferential interest in a specific native culture by the researcher.For example, Spinden (1908), Walker (1968), and Haines(1955, 1970) tend to describe the region as part of the Nez Perce territo-

ries. Conversely, researchers such as Liljeblad(1957), Murphy and Murphy (1960), and Swanson (1974), whose greater interestis in the Shoshoni, tend to present the area as theheartland of the mountain Shoshoni. Since archaeologists must use known historical and ethnographic data as bases for many of theirreconstructions, and since a great deal of archaeological and anthropologicalwork is in the nature of attempting to trace and validatecultural origins and migrations, this territorial ambiguity poses agreat

problem. The specific geographic boundaries of the area inquestion

are as follows: to the east, the long, northward-flowing stretch of the main Salmon River which is now paralleledby highway 93; to the south, the South Fork of the PayetteRiver; to the west, the Payette Lakes; and to the north, thelong, westward-flowing stretch of the main Salmon River.Within this region lie the South and Middle Forks of the Salmon River andthe Redfish Lake at the headwaters of the Salmon River(Figure 7). 16 This country lies in a very strategic positionbetween the Plateau to the north and west and the Great Basin to thesouth. On Hogg's (1981) map of the "Cultural Regions of theGreater Northwest" this area lies at the very southern tip of theMontane region (Figure 8). Hogg's map is of prime significance to this paper asit offers a much-needed and viable solution to another stateof ambiguity within the archaeological and anthropologicalliterature. For some 40 years the Plateau and the Great Basin have been regarded by anthropologists and archaeologists as viableNative American "cultural regions." Ray(1939) could be said to have initiated this trend with the Plateau region andCressman (1942, 1977) with the Great Basin. For some four decades, then, anthropologists and archaeologists have been bent onculturally "typing" Native peoples within one or the other ofthese cultural areas according to 1) the proximity of the groupin question to either of the areas, and2) cultural traits evidenced or seemingly evidenced by the groupin question. The ambiguity and the questionableness of this system ismade quite evident when researching the Northern Shoshoni, particularlytheir pre-history. Systematic high-country archaeology in thecentral Idaho region can be said to be in its initialstages of development. Following the leads of predecessors, contemporaryarchaeologists shy away from proposing a mountain-orientedand originated or montane culture. Several scholars clearly describe a longcultural continuity in the high country regions andtraits or evidences of traits that can be ascribed to mountainousliving, but in their conclusions they simply attempt to lump anyfindings into a pattern of Plateau or Great Basin typology(Bense 1972; Ames and Marshall 1980; Knudson 1982). The possibility for greateranthropological clrity certainly seems to exist if aMontane cultural area such as that suggested byHogg (1981) were to be regarded asviable. Swanson (1972:209) himself states that: 17

Cultural regions of the greater Northwest: T. C. Hogg, 1981

Figure 8 18 Ethnographic data indicated that the largest population of related Shoshonean peoples lay along the Rocky Mountains on the axis of an ecological system. In turn this suggested that mountain valleys may have been the homeland of Northern Shoshoni and related populations since early time rather than a late marginal refuge. Over time, archaeologists have advanced certain frequently encountered data which have come to be regarded as a classic identification of certain cultural affinities. In the Northwest Plateau area, two of these data by which archaeologistsclassify their findings as to "cultural type" are: apparent settlement patterns and house types. According to Pavesic (1978:35), "The Middle Fork is a prime candidate for delineatingthe evolu- tion of the housepit village cluster."Pavesic (1978:33,35) also offers two excellent precautions: 1) that "Researchers should again be reminded, it is not aneither/or situation; the reconstructed Middle Fork model may prove to be unique";and 2) that "It may prove to be archeologically impossible to directly correlate historic populations over thousandsof years." Six years before Pavesic's report on his work on theMiddle Fork, the late Dr. E. H. Swanson, Jr. published hisextensive work, Birch Creek: Human Ecology in the Cool Desert of the Northern Rocky Mountains 9,000 B.C. - A.D. 1850. Swanson (1972:5) stated that his intentions were to examine hishypothesis that "...the Northern Shoshoni belonged to the mountains."He was directly challenging the classic viewpoint that theShoshoni were late migrants into the area from the south. In his discussion of this theory, Swanson (1972:5) states that "Theassumption reflects the degree of knowledge available and a tendency among mento follow

in one another's footsteps. The assumption was reinforced by the tendency among anthropologists to treat amountain area as a marginal refuge." While this deep mountainous country may seemhostile and formidable to those with no penchant formountain living, the 19 area is, in point of fact, veryhospitable for human habitation- - both permanent and seasonal. As Swanson and Sneed (1966:44) so aptly put it: "Until one has traversed the Salmon Riverwilder- ness it is impossible torealize how accessible the region is, and what a comfortable place to live much of it canbe." After his work at Bighorn Shelter in MeadowCanyon, Ranere (1971:54) said: The excavations in Meadow Canyon haveproduced information which calls to question anotherview commonly held in Intermontane prehistory--thatin the past mountains functioned chiefly asbarriers to movements of peoples. The occupation of Bighorn Shelter at 7400 feet a.s.l. documents thefact that man has been exploitinghigh mountain terrain for over 7000 years, althoughperhaps in small numbers. The archaeological data presented in this paper appearto bear out these statements.

Adjacent Area Studies and Sites Considerable archaeological work has beendone in areas adjacent to the general region defined onFigure 7. Those archeological sites and studies which encirclethis region can be assumed to have at least predictivevalue for future work done within the region, and so have beendesignated in this paper as adjacent area studies and sites. For this thesis, some 36 dated sites were reviewed. Although this information by no means exhausts all that has been done in the area,it nevertheless presents a determinative model for pre-and proto-historic human habitation of the area. The maps for this discussion havebeen divided chronologi- cally after Antevs'(1955) climatic sequence. Because the adjacent area sites will cover twoestablished "cultural" regions- - the Plateau and the GreatBasisn--and will therefore be subjectto the various a great variety oftemporal delineations according to researchers, Antevs' 10,000 climatic sequenceseems the most practical breakdown(Figure 9). Next to this basic time frame, by four the various comparativeclimatological sequences proposed TRAPS mom sviBoon mum ilium (1970157) (1972161,62) (1978 143,44) (1970.1(0) 0 VII. semi-arid IX. glacIptionl o V. "tomperatur. TIT 01 OUEnt III. modern t,000 1 ant moisture---y.;triad. thanFl(iTinreff,:1:6 cooirrtoo. similar to briefly cool I present warmth and DAMP' V. 4,000 B.P. - present. and motet, 2,000 , conditions' dryness IV. 7,000 8,r, - 4,000 P.P. turning smi- Again" III. 11,000 8.r. - 7,000 8.1'. arid, hut not II. 12,000 D.P. - 11,000 D.P. uniformly so" II. warm 3,000 y I. to 12,000 D.P. TU, cooler, ao1 motator dry IV. cool SWANNON1 VII. 1)2 B.P. (1050i again - present. 4,000 and VI. 732 D.P. (1250 - 1)2 D.P. -1117-coniingtir motet V. 3,450 B.p. IV. "warmer wermnona and - 792 P.P. IV. and drier &looms, 5,850 B.P. 3.450 B.P. 5,0110 III. 7,200 D.P. - 5,050 D.P. than the "grannes II. 11,300 B.P. 7,200 8.1'. present" begin to I. cool I. to 11000 D.P. -TII. and 6,000 primarily fall"; mmoll- arldo later tIon peaks moint EUTLfAn II. 650 D.P. - historic period (1805) alternates at 7800171' VIII. 2,e00 D.P. - 650 B.P. with nest-arid 7,000 __,/...t.i.ji VII. 3,000 D.P. - 2,e80 D.P. a 11 111 h TrilA.41g.1,171,11/- rt. 7,200 P.P. - 3,1100 D.P. latIono III. "cool, II. "primarily 7-W V. 0,490 D.P. - V.acute for 7,200 P.P. 8,000 nothomid ,cold and IV. 1o,o00 D.P. - 8,400 survival and motet, but 111. 11,400 D.P. - 10,800 D.P. neat -arid drier at IT. 'warming 11. 13,000 D.P. - 11,400 D.P. 9,000 at first, beginning trend, 1. to 13,000 D.P. m becoming aid end of Interrupted # warmer period' b)' cold AIMS' 111. 2,500 B.P. - present 10 000 ad pulses"u II. 1------. 5,000 P.P. - 2.500 B.P. &tier' 1. 7.000 B.P. - 5,000 B.P.

11,000 III. dill cool, Briefly dry, then cool anti moist, hut loos so than M-17-43013 were periods II. and IV. and dry warming trend I. "wet, 12,000 than now II. cool, turning warming tr T. "cool end trend cold Intervals muldneddt at the l3,000 8-12" end" cooler, 1. "cool to 8-12" more 14,000 cold,' with precipata- "parnhos ml tion than wet present' n oadowe 15,000

Figure 9 Comparative chronological climaticsequences 21 noted archaeologists in the region defined on Figure 9(Ranere 1970; Swanson 1972; Aikens 1978; Butler 1978) have been placed in a comparative juxtaposition. Of these four sources, there appears to be a graduated order of refinement, with Butler's divisions being the mostdetailed. It should be noted that while he has provided nine climatalogical sequences, Butler (1978:45) does state that: Periods VII and IX are not detectable in most archaeological deposits, but they are conspicuous in the annual growth rings of certain species of trees such as Douglas Fir... While Swanson's Period IV (5850 - 3450 B.P.; cool andmoist) overlaps the Altithermal, the fact that a great deal of hiswork was done on sites at higher elevationsmust surely have some bearing on his findings. In fact, Knudson et al. (1982:77) seems to clarify this very point in their discussion of theextensive 1978 Middle Fork Basin Reconnaissance: However, consideration should be given also to the idea that they [Middle Fork sites] represent middle prehistoric population stability in an area that was rich in plantand animal resources and not subject to the relative droughts ofthe more open grasslands suggested byButler's paleoclimatic analysis. Ranere's divisions would seem to be both the simplestand yet most satisfactorily detailed for general purposes. While Aikens' are very broad and begin as late as7,000 years ago, Aikens merely offered them as his interpretations of Antevs'work. Antevs' climatic sequences are very good asbase references, but as further archaeological advances aremade and each study offers its conslusions, the information becaomes moreand more

confusing. Furthermore, Antevs (1955:322) did not accountfor climatic conditions in western North Americaprior to 10,000 years ago, and theseearlier dates are becoming increasingly important. Aikens (1978:163) addresses this problemneatly and concisely: It is now clear that the Ana-Alti-Medi-thermal 22

sequence describes only the broadestoutlines of paleoclimatic change in the West,and that prehistorians have to reckon with more complex and local paleoclimatic sequences if they are to meaningfully relate changes in environment to changes in cultural-ecological systems. Considering Aikens' statement, Figure 9, and basicdiffer- ences in terminologies amongresearchers, it would appear that Antevs' sequences do not diminish in value withintheir range. To have an accurate but more minutely definedrecord of paleocli- matalogical data will take infinitely more researchthan has been done to date, and so far as is currentlyknown, Antevs' sequences still serve as an excellent base on whichto bracket findings. As in any branch of scientific endeavor,this base should not, however, be used as an absolute from whichfindings that do not "fit" are discarded. Rather it should serve as a guideline, in and of itself susceptible to changeshould newer or more extensive data suggest it. Since there are sites of considerableantiquity in the area to be discussed, the first map(Figures 10, 11) was made to cover the end of the Pleistocene up to thebeginning of the Neothermal, 20,000 - 10,000 B.P. Under this chronological category, eleven sites from the sample have been mappedfrom Jaguar Cave in the east to Shoup Rockshelters to the north(see Table I). Six of these eleven sites have beendated approximately: Bar Z; Sawmill Canyon; Uncle Ike Creeksites; Birch Creek Sinks; National Reactor Testing Station(NRTS); and the Simon Site. Swanson et al. (1964:108) indicate thatthe Bar Z and Uncle Ike Creek sites appear to have been more orless continuously occupied for the past 10 - 12,000 years andthat "...the earliest artifacts compare with those of theBirch Creek Phase at the Veratic and Bison Rockshelters"(ibid. p. 113). A similar judgment is made for the Sawmill Canyon sitebased on the fact that "Virtually all point types occur here..."(ibid. p. 100). The NRTS site (Butler 1970:62,66) and the Birch Creek Sinks(Swanson and Bryan 1964:11,12) were both dated from surface Folsompoint finds, and Table IAdjacentarea sites: 20,000- 10,000 B.P.

SITE ELEVATION AGE SOURCE 11,580 ± 250 Butler 1978:61,62 Jaguar Cave 7450' 10,370 ± 350 Swanson et al. 19641108 Bar Z 6700' *10 - 12,000 Swanson et al. 196419,100 Sawmill Canyon 7450' *11,000 - 7200 Red Fish Overhang 6574' *10 - 11,000 Gallagher 1979:55 Bison and Veratic Rockshelters 6100' 11,400 Swanson 1972:91 Swanson et al. 1964:108 Uncle Ike Creek site 8200' *10 - 12,000 Swanson and Bryan 1964:11,12 Birch Creek Sinks 5000' *12 - 13,000 Butler 1978:Figure 37

Nat'l. Reactor Testing Station 5000' *10 - 11,000 Butler 1970:62,66 (NETS) Wasden site 5000' 12,850 1 150 Butler 1978:60 12,250 ± 200 10,920 ± 150

Wilson Butte Cave 4300' 15,000 ± 800 Butler 1978:11,12 14,500 ± 500

Simon site 5056' *12 - 15,000 Butler 1978:59 Swanson and Sneed 1966:12,35 Shoup Rockshelters 3100' 12,410 ± 115

* = approximated dates 24

Figure 10Map of sites: 20,000 10,000 B.P. 25

,11.t Kw&. "10-.i.;,.;4%.:,,. =no --;;-e; 4, 4.npr.ie-"vt,_st. I. , s:t --1.'-.§"*.""4.N !"Q;,VD- 1:c. -- er". "N ; A.! >41 A* r ) Vow, so `,;t:

. -1.; , 7' i.11724; c ' *4: 4 Afer, , 0 4-r N_J - 4." :7;7- 40.16 4,- , ---%::::' .= ,,--Z.: ..... - f-.1-"s;l''''''-.4?-'7' -, , 4:$ .,--..:..-:...... r -11rree.,...L4 ..r tr,"..- %kyr.. -41.!.' 1'70 c.0 !MIK' 1211,7 ...;..-. C 'ItC'gr.c""*. 'rat; con"vo , 4,...-t i..:--,,'.--..k.N'.r7. .",,,k-,: --4-P"-1- -;------'1',1k. PC . -4;,;-,--e.::-";; -...g.,.:,...--;".. ..,. - .., .-.-'4,,.;.' , ..-.., .. -,,- , ...... ;_;.:.. - 1; - ..4...... tte. ,, .-.-.:,,,,,,., ,,,4.,,,, .....41..ralc..11 n ..,..- ,t, .: . ,.....1,- ,-)t:rAtiatt -4,..t..it:rti.--w-7:.,,'ket 1, ) v, A.- .4,--. - -- -,,,,-,.'-.AN,' ....."-,-r-"/ ' : ..1661,-,,ke.'C':.....A. "kY... A' . \ N.4711;44-1:tt.e. b...-..F. ;.,:.'- -..M: - s:4''..i0 Se,...e.' .'...%:I.,' te.,.:P....gL, - 16/:,sks ',AV...S.:Ai', :1;,e. :i4.1.1..:"... fs.. 44. It y - - Zr:Atte.V.! ;....ef. I er.. c":4..; * r'- i VA.. .$' '''l 4:::' N ..a...4.dier;-%'t a-..'''''..%%'"-?, t. ,':',.7(i',.-4.;',;i;.41?-i,.\ ::- .. / 0. k "...t .. , i .1,--i- / v...."-.;---. ; int kJ- r 0 .4.:..., ; -P....e. "`s N.,.i--, 4 -AWL% 14,,,-. 1,',...... 44.,.0 . '-'-., Irrn4',11. IF.,. -.4...t.,::. -T*4?-!-,: N.v- it . ....:. ar v , ,-... Poss ..,...:".... ,.,.77,. 4r...wt.. -741" %., t,r,....A :

.g-e in PSZ 194 4i 0 fa0.1.1. r - ;. Mites ; - tAik's,i

*--$: .

insert for Figure10 Red Fish Overhangsite: (see Table I)

Figure 11 26 the Simon Site (Butler1978:59) from a single "cache" of Clovis points. While the remainder of the sites inthis time bracket were radiocarbon dated,the cross-comparison ofprojectile points, nevertheless, played a veryimportant role in decisions as to time periods. Clovis and Folsom projectile points arethe earliest diagnostic tools cited for this area. The dates assigned to these sites, then, would seem to belargely inferential, as the original Folsom and Clovis finds werefrom the Southwestern United States. Leonhardy and Rice(1970:2) describe the "phase" generally as a "...regionalculture type." Strictly speaking, the sites in this 10 - 11,000 years B.P.time bracket were not assigned designated as a to phases. This epoch has, instead, been described for this "tradition." The term "tradition" is best area by Butler(1978:58): Following Willey (1966:38), thephrase 'Early Big-Game Hunting Tradition' is used here in connection withthose 'early cultural complexes which arecharacterized by distinctive lanceolate pointtypes and other associated lithic, or stone,remains.' The point types in question arethe fluted Clovis and Folsom and the broad rangeof types collectively referred to as'Plano.' Of the 12 sites in the 20 -10,000 B.P. sample, only one of does not appear to have yieldedthe typical "lanceolate" type Shoup were the "Salmon point. Instead, the oldest points from River," "Elko-eared," and stemmedindented based points from Alpha Rockshelter, layer43, dated at 12,410-± 115 years B.P. stemmed indented (ibid. p. 12). Sawmill Canyon also produced a based point, but it yielded aPlainview and McKean type lanceo- 37f). late as well (Swanson et al. 1964:100, Figures 36bb,33; from the The only other stemmed pointfor this time period came of a large Uncle Ike Creek site. This is only the basal portion it stemmed point which has beencalled an "Alberta" point, and 27 may or may not belong with thissample (Swanson et al. 1964:100, Figure 37h). The rest of the points from this segment were all lanceolates ranging from the Simon Site Clovis points(Butler 1978: Figure 31) to the Folsom points from the Birch Creek Sinks (Swanson and Bryan 1964:11,12) and the NRTS (Butler 1970:72, Figure 49), and a variety of long, narrow lanceolates including the Late Plano (Butler 1978: Figure 34), the Birch Creek"B" (Swanson 1972:103, Figure 48p), the Birch Creek "A" (ibid. Figure 48a), the Haskett (Butler 1970:72, Figure4e), and the Plano (ibid. Figure 4a). According to both Swanson and Ranere, the general climate for the region was both colder and moister than today. Swanson (1972:52) states that for the period which ended between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago there was "...considerable moisture..."and "...greater stream flow than at any time since..." Ranere (1970: 57) states not only that the climate was "...cool and subhu- mid...", but also that it was "...ca. 8 -12°F. cooler than present and 8 - 12" more precipitation than present."

The Neothermal Sequences: The Anathermal At approximately 10,000 years ago, Antevs(1948, cited by Butler 1978) indicates the beginning of his Neothermal sequence with the Anathermal--10,000 - 7,500 B.P. --(Figure 9). Butler's (1978:43) general description of the period, "...warming trend interrupted by cold pulses," would seem to encompass thegamut of findings for the Anathermal(Figure 9) in the Great Basin area. Cressman (1977:44) offers the precautionary advicethat while the Antevs sequence is generally valid, itis always best to bear in mind that C-14 dates, soilsamples, and other data tend to show that the time brackets vary fromlocation to loca-

tion. The sample for this paper shows equal amountsof sites for the Anathermal and for the previous timebracket (Table II). The projectile point types have not changeddrastically, Table II Adjacent area sites: 10,000 - 7,500 B.P.

SITE ELEVATION AGE SOURCE Bar Z 6700' 11,000 - 7,200 Swanson et al. 1964:70,113 Sawmill Canyon 7450' 11,000 - 7,200 Swanson et al. 1964:70,113 Bison and Veratic Rockshelters 6100' 8,200 - 7,200 Swanson 1972:65-67 10-CL-100 6100' 8,200 - 7,200 Swanson et al. 1964:70 Swanson 1972:66,104 Uncle Ike Creek site 8200' 11,000 - 7,200 Swanson et al. 1964:70,113 Jackknife Cave *7500' 8130 ± 105 Swanson and Sneed 1966143 NRTS 5000' 10,000 - 7,500 Butler 1970:66 Wasden site 5000' 8160 ± 260 Butler 1978:60 7750 ± 210 Haskett site *4500' 10,000 ± 300 Butler 1978:65 Red Fish Overhang 6574' 9860 t 300 Butler 1978:65 Pavesic 1978:8 Weitas Creek 2320' 10,000 - 8,000 Keeler 1973:69 Shoup Rockshelters 3100' 8,500 - 8,000 Swanson and Sneed 1966:25

* = Elevations approximated from USGS 11500,000 map of Idaho, and knowledge of the area 29

'7/

IbbiA

Figure 12Map of sites: 10,000 - 7,500 B.P. 30 however. There is still a predominance of lanceolate points interspersed with a few stemmed and/or notched points. The main difference would seem to be that thelanceolates show more variation in form. Swanson and Sneed (1966:24) have stated that a projectile point type "...is considered to havetemporal as well as spatial significance,is associated with a distinct style, and sometimes technology." This research does not go into so detailed a discussion of projectile points. The purpose here is merely to show that in any establishedtime sequence, certain general forms of points were more orless predominant in the designated region regardless of "Basin" or"Plateau"

designations. In the Anathermal time bracket, the site ofgreatest interest is the Redfish Lake site(Figure 12). The Redfish Lake site lies closest to the South Fork and, therefore,has the greatest implications for future work. The oldest date of 9860 ± 300 (Butler 1978:65; Pavesic 1978:8), which is associated with a cache of Haskett points (ibid.Butler), indicates that at some time near the end of the Pleistocene thecentral Idaho mountains were populated. Site elevations in Table I indicate that halfof the twelve sites in the sample were situated between5056 and 8200 feet above sea level. Although the Shoup Rockshelters are only3100 feet high, it should be remembered that theylie on a riverbank in a very deep and narrow canyon surroundedby 7649 feet peaks to the east, 8535 feet peaks to the west,and 9754 feet peaks to the north. In this sample, those sites representativeof the Anathermal (10,000 - 7,500B.P.) show a very similar pattern as regards elevation. These facts would seem to refuteSwanson's (1966:43) statement that "The radiocarbon dates permitthe suggestion that much of the high country wasnot occupied before about 8200 years ago." For this study, the Altithermal was"broken" at 7000 years B.P. and mapped in two separate sectionsaccordingly (Figure 13) Table III Adjacent area sites: 7,500- 7,000 B.P.

SITE ELEVATION AGE SOURCE Swanson et al. 1964170,113 Sawmill Canyon 7450' 11,000 - 7,200 Ranere 197118,35 Bighorn Rockshelter 7700' 7,200 Swanson 1972151 Bison Rockshelter 6100' 6925 ± 200 Swanson 1972165-67, Tables 2,3 10-CL,100 6100' 8,200 - 7,200 Swanson 1972:65-67, Tables 2,3 Uncle Ike Creek site 8200' 8,200 - 7,200 Swanson and Bryan 1964110 Birch Creek Sinks 5000' 7,000 - 3,000 Butler 1970:66 NRTS 5000' 7,500 - 3,500 Butler 1962:Figure 8 Weis Rockshelter 4000' 7340 ± 140 Butler 1962166 Picture Cave 4000' 7,500 - 3,490 Ames and Green, n.d. Hatwai 2000' 7060 ± 135 Figure 13Map of sites: 7,500 - 7,000 B.P. 33 in order to take into consideration the eruptionof Mt. Mazama. According to Cressman (1977:55), "...7,000t 120 C-14 years ago is a resonably firm date for the eruption and may beused at present to date the Mt. Mazama Volcanic Ash Horizon."Two things seem to be evident from this break: 1) in this sample there are half again as many sites following Mazama asthere were before, and 2) there appears tobe a slight shift overall in projectile point form predominance. From 20,000 to approximately 7,500 years B.P. thefavored type of point seems to have been variations ofthe "lanceolate", with only a light scattering of stemmed points. It might be noted, however, that this sample indicates thatfrom the earliest site records in this area (see Tables I, II,III) the stemmed points, usually triangular shaped and notched, appearto be coming out of the high country sites of the steepmountainous terrain. By the Anathermal, this generally triangularshaped class of projectile points is still in the minority,and is still seen largely in the highlands on the eastern side of theregion (Bison and Veratic Rockshelters at 6100", the Uncle Ike Creek site at 8200", Sawmill Canyon at 7450", and theBar Z site at

6700"). In this segment of the sample--the Anathermal--thereis one exception to the general,easterly, high country geographical pattern and that is the stemmed pointsfrom Hatwai between 9,400 and 9,000 years B.P. (Ames and Green1977). At this point there is a descrepancy inthis information. The earliest definite date for the RedFish Overhang site is 9860 ± 300 (Pavesic 1978:8; Butler1978:65). With one exception, the information in this report regardingthe Red Fish Overhang site comes from secondary sources sincethe original report was unavailable. This exception is Gallagher's 1979 reportpublished by the Forest Service. While this publication gives an excellent and detailed account of Gallagher'sSheepeater Battleground site, there is almost no data given forthe Red Fish Overhang 34 site. The only dating for this site is in Gallagher's (1979: 55) statement that: The cultural material recovered from the Red Fish Overhang is a discontinuous record of the prehistory of Stanley Basin during the past 10,000 - 11,000 years. Likewise, the information for Squaw Creek, Lenore II, the West Mountain Midvale Complex, and parts of JagilRr Cave comes from secondary sources. These sites therefore show a lack of chronological continuity which is seen in the other sites. In the case of the Red Fish Overhang site, both secondary sources agree that the points found at the 9800 year old level were Haskett points (Pavesic 1978:8; Butler1978:65). In their discussion of the "Haskett tradition", Knudson et al. (1982:75) state that the earliest firmly identified occupants of central Idaho were the makers of the Haskett tradition stone tools found at Red Fish Overhang." The authors then go on to identify the following as other high country sites which have yielded Haskett points: Mt. Bennett Hills (Butler and Fitzwater 1965), "...near American Falls...; (Butler 1965), the Devil's Creek drainage (Murphy 1977), north slopes of the Jarbridges (Murphy 1977), and in some "...high elevation sites..." in Montana(George Frison 1981: personal communication) in which the points were "...occa- sionally associated with fossil bison remains"(Knudson et al. 1982:75). Red Fish Overhang, too, is a high country site--6574'--but unlike many of the others in this sample, it is adjacent to a broad, high meadow today known as the Stanley Basin. Here are the headwaters of the main Salmon River. Some 70 miles down the river--to the east, and then north of Stanley Basin, lies Challis, Idaho--near which Butler(1978:51) located his Challis Bison Jump site. Butler (ibid.) cites an interview of Liljeblad's with an informant who had been born "...in the upperSalmon River locale..." sometime around 1860. This informant described the buffalo surrounds held by the people in his native areawhen 35 he was a youngster. The lanceolate points are generally accepted as part of the bison killing kit and would, therefore, be likely in sites in or adjacent to bison habitats. Knudson et al. (1982:75) support this idea: The grasslands of the Stanley Basin and Sawtooth Valley on either side of the Redfish Overhang could well have supported bison populations, suggesting that the Haskett tradition tools there also represent high elevation hunters of large mammals at the end of the Pleistocene. In spite of the lack of data from the Red Fish Lake site, the idea of the triangular, stemmed and notched points radiating out from high country peoples can still be explored. In their report on the Midvale Complex of western Idaho, Warren, Wilkin- son and Pavesic (1971:51) made the following observation: It is our contention that the distribution of Bitterroot side notched points represents diffusion of an idea, but that environmental, cultural, and possible other unknown facts influence this diffusion so as to produce an irregular sloping horizon, the nature of which remains to be adequately explained. It is possible that archaeologists are making a mistake in placing so much emphasis on projectile point types as diagnostics of the supposed cultural affiliations of the populations in question. While the terrain and the type of game hunted were no doubt dictators of projectile point style for early populations, another factor could be taken into consideration. Within any culturally affiliated group, it is possible and logical to sup- pose that tool styles may differconsiderably according to the type of hunting done by a portion of that group. Perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on trying to equate a population's gross cultural affinities--language,spiritual beliefs--with eating habits and residence. It is possible that Mountain Population X could have had bands whopreferred living in areas adjacent to or within bison territorybecause they preferred to eat and hunt bison. At the same time, Mountain 36

Population X could have had other bands whopreferred the steeper elk and mountain sheep country becausethey preferred to eat and hunt this type of game. These general eating and hunting habits need not have had so profound an effect onthe basic "ethnicity" of the population that millennia laterit could be detected from a few tools. The case may simply be that, as apeople, these high country dwellers were of amountainous culture, and while some may have chosen tohunt and eat in areas on the veryedge of the deep mountains such as RedFish Lake or in the Challis area, they were still highcountry people making use of their environment to its very limits.

The Altithermal By the beginning of the Altithermal,the majority of the points for this sample are clearlystemmed. These stemmed points range from the very large"corner notched" point found at the Bighorn Rockshelter(Ranere 1971: Plate 7h) to the small Bitterroot side notched points fromShoup and the NRTS(Swanson and Sneed 1966:34; Butler1970:66). Of the 12 sites in the sample, only the Weis Rockshelterdid not contain any stemmed or notched points. As mentioned previously, overhalf of these sites are located in the highcountry. This particular 500 year sequence shows a veryslight increase in sites to thewest. During the last 2500 years of theAltithermal--from the eruption of Mt. Mazama to theend of the sequence(7000 - 4500 B.P.)--there appear to be several shifts in thedata (Table IV). First, there are quite a few moresites than previously. While the greater portion of these arestill located to the east, a significant number are now in thenorth and west. Further, according to this sample, thehigh country no longerpredominates. In this particular sample,Gallagher's Sheepeater site would site seem to be somewhataberrant. Gallagher begins to date this with the level 6 which is theearliest level yieldingprojectile points, and those points were"...square base lanceolate and Table IV Adjacent area sites: 7,000- 4,500B.P.

SITE ELEVATION AGE SOURCE Sheepeater Battleground 6500' *7,000 Gallagher 1979,55 Bighorn Rockshelter 7700' *6,625 5,775 Ranere 1971,18,36 Cottontail Rockshelter 7000' 4,420 ± 145 Swanson et al. 1964,116 Figure 36 Bison and Veratic Rockshelters 6100' 6,282 ± 229 - 4,500± 110 Swanson 1972,51,66,67 10-C1.400 6100' 4,500 3 100 Swanson 1972,51,66,67 NRTS 5000' *7,500 - 3,500 Butler 1970,66 Wilson Butte Cave 5000' 6,850 t 300 Butler 1978,13 Figure 4 Squaw Creek I 1688' *6,000 - 3,500 Pavesic 1971130; Keeler 1973179 Dry Creek *2500' *6,60o Caldwell and Mallory 1967,33,34 Divide Creek *4410 *6,5oo Caldwell and Mallory 1967,43 Cooper's Ferry *4000' *7,500 - 3,490 Butler 1962,55 Picture Cave *4000' *7,500 - 3,490 Butler 1962,36 -40, Figures 9,10 Weis Rockshelter '4000' *6,000 - 4,000 Butler 1962;36-40, Figures 9,10 Hatwai *2000' 7,060 ± 135 - 4,70o± 15o Ames and Green, n.d. Lenore II *1100' *6,000 - 4,000 Keeler 1973,79 Weitas Creek 2320' *6000 - 3,500 Keeler 1973,79 Shoup Rockshelters 3100' 7,15o ± 231 (Alpha) Swanson and Sneed 1966,12 5,675 t 175 (Beta)

* ELEVATIONS = estimates from 1977 USGS State of Idaho 1000,000 map and knowledge of the country * Age = not C-14 dated 38

Figure 14Map of sites: 7,000 - 4,500 B.P. 39

"ITZ *.. , 44, -74.,w 1'41.4 99.0 .4.7;-14:4:41.....11:k44347.,;11.441Qie6! mk %,,,,e), '**"1":t ;:lot :':, .,.:_.-.:. -, ^"" tsllk.., '-',.... =:: :4S. t .4?,.1 7r, ...-4,..,A .::..)Y .s:'-'t ;' ,s1 ::.;.:.:-I ,-' ,r-st=-7., z-"-.....7.,"','.:4-'' 41o IN% '1','"' 5:::,.',,,,i',. it..,4:-..i`1"-- .14:6;1-.4:11.7:t!, ...,, ! ..: , -4.,..! .*-1,4,, 4' ' .4 $TAIlltY 4. 4 : 4.'' .,...... 4....,....:--."..--F--'..... iies 1 -, 84. tStM , v, --. 1:::_cv,-;(4 8. 4".,.."....%'''..,.".' ;;:-.- -.,,Ar".-*\ " -0115W ; NI', , .,:, N -%. . a:t ,,-.44.: -7:114

-;t yill `:piNZ: Out; e: .' "... A Erwin Raisz 47' p Ajir6:4, it= - II Ask -. -...-.:-.....----st*i !=,-..! .-N.---: Miles r

--..-.1i....,>.Z...1-- ....N--....__.a,,..,;;Lp'...-:-,,N. -....r.- '--,.1" 2, i a. nvntAltr 44.Z"re;S:4

Sheepeater Battleground site: insert for Figure 14 (see Table IV)

Figure 15 40 large Type 3, sidenotched points" (1979:50). In dating this level, Gallagher (ibid. 67) reasons that: It should be noted that the chronological cross correlation of the artifact types and the obsidian hydration study suggest the initial occupation of Sheepeater began about 7000 years B.P. This statement does not take into account the author's earlier (ibid. 49) statement that "The earliest cultural materialrecov- ered at Sheepeater came from Level 9 (120-135 cm) and consists of 12 obsidian percussion struck flakes." He goes on to explain that only one 2 x 2 m square was investigated at this level. Apparently the same set of circumstances was true for Levels 8 and 7. There seems to be as much reason to assume that the Sheepeater site is older than 7000 years as there is to assume that it is not. Following the time of Mt. Mazama, there seems to be a split in point type "popularity"--roughly half and half lanceolates and stemmed points. Of the lanceolates, leaf-like, or generally oval-shaped points occurred at the Bison Rockshelter to the east (Swanson 1972:51,66; Tables 2,3); Divide Creek to the west (Cald- well and Mallory 1967:43); and Cooper's Ferry, Picture Cave (Butler 1962:55), Weis Rockshelter (Butler 1962:36-40; Figures 9, 10), and Hatwai (Ames and Green 1978) to the north. Notched base lanceolates occurred largely in the north at Shoup (Swanson and Sneed 1966:12), Weis Rockshelter (Butler 1962:36-40; Figures 9,10), and Weitas Creek (Keeler 1973:79). Butler (1978: Figure 4), however, characterizes the Wilson Butte V assemblage, far to the south of the above sites, by a notched base lanceolate which he labels a McKean point, although he states in parentheses that it is "...actually Humboldt Concave Base A." The two above-mentioned lanceolate types were also included generally under lanceolates. Taken generally in their several shapes or types, the lanceolates during this period were noted in the Cottontail Rockshelter (Swanson et al. 1964:116; 41 Figure 36), Bison and Veratic Rockshelters (Swanson 1972:51,66; Tables 2,3) to the east; Wilson Butte Cave (ibid.) to the south; Divide Creek (Caldwell and Mallory 1967:43) to the west; and Weis Rockshelter (Butler 1962:36-40; Figures 9,10), Hatwai (Ames and Green 1978), Weitas Creek (Keeler 1973:79), and Shoup (Swanson and Sneed 1966:12) to the north. The other general type of point can be broadly classed as triangular, stemmed and notched points. These include the various types of Bitterroot side-notched points, the stemmed indented base points, and the sharply barbed corner-notched points. In the east, these points are found at the Bighorn Rockshelter (Ranere 1971:18,36), Cottontail Rockshelter (Swanson et al. 1964: 116; Figure 136), and Bison and Veratic Rockshelters (Swanson 1972:51,66; Tables 2,3); to the south at the NRTS (Butler 1970: 66) and the Wilson Butte Cave (Butler 1978:11); and to the north Cooper's Ferry (Butler 1962:55), Hatwai (Ames and Green 1978), Weitas Creek (Keeler 1973:79), and Shoup (Swanson and Sneed 1966:

12). From this sample during the post-Mazama portion of the Altithermal, no points of this type were indicated in sites to the west. It must be remembered, however, that for the Lenore II and Squaw Creek sites, only some dates and comparative statements from secondary sources were available for this thesis. The data cited would seem to indicate not that people were moving into the "uplands" during the Altithermal, but rather that they were coming down the slopes (see Table IV). While the high country sites which dominated in the earlier time spans were in excess of 6000', out of 16 sites in this time frame, only five (including Shoup) are high country sites, and the remaining 12 average roughly 3200' elevations. From 7000 B.P. to the present, the sites in this region become more abundant and the projectile point collections seem to follow Swanson's (1964:67) statement that "In general, the fre- quency of small points increases with time." 42 The Medithermal Like the Altithermal, the Medithermal has been subdivided. This was done to determine whether, within this sample, there had been any type of population shift in such a long (4500 years) period of time. The first half of the Medithermal (4,500 - 2,000 B.P.) retains some similarity to the post-Mazama portion of the Altithermal (7,000 - 4,500 B.P.) (Tables IV, V; Figures 14, 15, 16). In this sample, the former shows only two more sites than the latter but, while the Altithermal shows only six sites out of 17 in high country, the first half of the Medither- mal shows 11 out of 19. The pattern of projectile points as delineated above, is much the same in this period as it was in the last.Both types of points appear to be fairly evenly distributed across the entire region. The large majority of the sites yielded only lanceolates. While during the Altithermal, both Divide Creek on the west and Weis Rockshelter on the north showed only lanceolates, during this time frame the Bighorn and Cottontail Rockshelters on the east, the Wasden site to the south, and Shoup to the north show only stemmed, notched triangular points. (Only the Bighorn Rockshelter in the east and the ERTS to the south showed this pattern during the Altithermal.) The final segment of time, the last half of the Medithermal covers the period from 2,000 B.P. until the historic present (Table VI; Figure 17). This temporal sequence shows a number of changes. First, there are more sites in this section than in any other (26). Only ten of these 26 sites are in locations above 6000' elevations. As during the early part of the Altithermal, the average elevation for the remaining 16 sites is some 3200'. The projectiles are predominantly the triangular stemmed and notched points. Only the Bighorn Rockshelter to the east and the Cooper's Ferry site to the west (and north) show lanceolates only. Most sites show no lanceolates at all. Table VAdjacent area sites: 4,500 - 2,000B.P.

SITE ELEVATION AGE SOURCE Big Creek Cave 7500' 3,900 t 90 - 2,010 t 160 Wylie et al. 1982,Figure 2 Sheepeater Battleground 650o' *4,500 - 4,000 Gallagher 1979,53 Jaguar Cave 7450e 3,930 t 390 Sadek-Kooros 1972,9 Polly's Place 7850' 2,52o t 150 Ranere 1971,22 Bighorn Rockshelter 7700' 2,000 - 285 Ranere 1971,18 Sawmill Canyon 7450' *4,500 - 2,000 Swanson et al. 1964,75 Cottontail Rockshelter 7000' *4,470 Swanson et al. 1964,117 Bison and Veratic Rockshelters 6100' 3,360 t 100 - 2,350 t120 Swanson 1972,51, Tables 1-3 ± 10-CL-100 6100' 4,500 ± 100 - 3,170 80 Swanson et al. 1964,117 RATS 5000' *3,500 - 65o Butler 1970,66,72 Wasden site 5000' 3,340 t 575 Butler 1978,60, Figure 37 Wilson Butte Cave 4300' 2,940 t 200 Butler 1978,11, 14 Midvale Complex (West Mtn.) *7000' *4,500 - 2,000 Wylie and Ketchum 1980,2 Midvale Complex (Cambridge) 3300' *4,500 - 2,000 Warren et al. 1971,53 Cooper's Ferry 4000' *3,490 - 2,105 Butler 1962164 Weis Rockshelter *4000' *3,439 - 2,055 Butler 1962,54-56, Keeler 1973,79 Hatwai *2000' 3,820 t 110 - 2,335 ±180 Ames and Green, n.d. Leonhardy and Rice 1970,13 Alpowa *1000' 4,060 t 130 Brauner 1976,318 (vol. 2) Shoup Rockshelter (Beta) 3100' *3,200 Swanson and Sneed 1966,13,25

*ELEVATIONS = estimates from 1977 USGS State of Idaho 1,500,000 map and knowledge of the country * ACE = not C-14 dated 244

Figure 16Map of sites: 4,500 2,000 B.P. Table VIAdjacent area sites: 2,000 B.P. -historic present

SITE ELEVATION AGE SOURCE Big Creek Cave 7500' 2,010 t 160 - 580 f 70 Wylie et al. 1982:Figure 2 Sheepeater Battleground 6500' *782 A.D. 1880 Gallagher 1979:54,55 Red Fish Overhang 6574' *840 Gallagher 1979355 Challis Bison Jump 5300' *782 - 682 Butler 1978.51, Figure 25 Polly's Place 7850' *1,730 Ranere 1971,22 Bighorn Rockshelter 7700' 2,000 t 285 - 470 t 460 Ranere 1971:18 Bobcat Rockshelter 6600' *2,000 Swanson et al. 1964,87, Table 5 Cottontail Rockshelter 7000' 150 t 125 Swanson et al. 19641101,116 10-CL-100 6100' *2,950 - 732 Swanson et al. 1964,101,116 Tipi Ring site 6200' historic Swanson et al. 1964:20 Desert Zone site 5100' *1,450 - historic Swanson et al. 1964,21,102 Uncle Ike Creek site 8200' *1,450 - historic Swanson et al. 1964;100 NRTS 5000' *650 historic Butler 1970.66 Wilson Butte Cave 4)00' 940 t 200 - 425 150 Butler 1978s11,14,Figure 4 Robinette Village *2500 *2,500 Caldwell and Mallory 1967114 Big Bar *2000' *1,482 - 1,182 Caldwell and Mallory 1967128,86 Big Canyon *2000' *882 432 Caldwell and Mallory 1967176 Somers Creek *2000' *582 - historic Caldwell and Mallory 1967131 Dry Creek *2000' *882 432 Caldwell and Mallory 1967,47 Divide Creek *2000' *932 - 182 Caldwell and Mallory 1967144 Hatwal *2000' 1,045 t 85 - 150 ± 70 Ames and Green, n.d. Leonhardy and Rice 1970sFigure 9 Alpowa *1000' 1,940 t 60 - 840 ± 70 Brauner 1976.312 (vol. 2) Cooper's Ferry *4000' *2,105 - 1,580 Butler 1962164 McLaughlin Flat *4000' *2,105 - 582 Butler 1962t65 Picture Cave *4000' protohistoric Butler 1962.65,66 Weis Rockshelter *4000' *2,105 - 482 Butler 1962,64-66 * ELEVATIONS = estimatesfrom 1977 USGS State of Idaho 1,500,000 mapand knowledge of the country * AGE = not C-14 dated Figure 17Map of sites: 2,000 B.P. historic present 47 CHAPTER IIIPREHISTORY OF THE SOUTH FORK LOCALITY

In approximately the center of the greater region discussed above lie the South and Middle Forks of the main Salmon River (Figure 18). While this thesis deals specifically with the South Fork, any archaeological discussion of that area should necessarily include the Middle Fork. In general, archaeological statements made about the Middle Fork would tend to translate to the South Fork as well. Since the greater archaeological time and effort has been spent on the Middle Fork, general statements made about and findings there will be of interest here. Pavesic (1978:9) made the following statement in his Middle Fork overview which is usually true for the South Fork as well: Swanson's research provides a basic cultural and environmental chronology directly applica- ble to the Middle Fork of the Salmon. Indeed, Swanson's suggestion of a Bitterroot - Northern Shoshoni hypothesis must be tested in a setting such as the Middle Fork provides. As the sites in the adjacent area study of this paper have shown, the mountain environment apparently has not been marginal. Rather, it has been a basic cultural system for milennia. The literature indicates that the generally triangular shaped and notched points, which are identified by various names, appear to be something of a hallmark in mountanous area sites.Further- more, the high country sites are showing more evidence of greater chronological continuity than was believed true by earlier archaeologists (Swanson and Bryan 1964; Swanson 1972; Bense

1972). This stability does not suggest a precarious marginal type of existence in the high country. The continued association of the triangular, notched points with these sites would argue that this point type may, indeed, be a marker of cultures with strong, long time high country affiliations. The sites of the South Fork and its environs show a predominance of the above- mentioned projectile point types. 48

MeinSalmon River

0 .

F: 0 SO SO OODO 000000000

OOOOOOO OOOO 0 41 ......

k after Rain .. ..i1}6410 1941, 1965

Reef° Fish lake

Figure 18South Fork and Middle Fork area sites 49 Although a large number of sites have been either mapped or indicated in the South Fork region, only three sites have been worked: 10-VY-65 on the upper South Fork (Boreson 1979), Big Creek Cave (10-VY-67) at the mouth of Big Creek (Wylie et al. 1982), and the Sheepeater Battleground site (10-CR-202) on Marsh Creek (Gallagher 1975) (Figure 19). The high site density on the South Fork locale and its immediate area would seem to support the evidence from the larger adjacent area. In the conclusion to her report, Boreson (1979:30) states that: Ethnographic evidence suggests this area was used by people from both the north and the south for fishing, hunting, and perhaps trade. This observation was supported by diagnostic Great Basin and Columbia Plateau projectile points recovered from 10-VY-65 and across the river. These projectile points are associated with various dates ranging from 2000 BC - AD 1700. The cultural remains at 10-VY-65 probably fall within this time frame. The limited work in the South Fork does not allow these dates to be regarded as definitive for the South Fork locale, or for a given site, however. Of the artifacts from 10-VY-65, all but two fell into the general triangular stemmed and notched category used here. One is a very small triangular piece which could be either a side or a corner notched point prior to notching. The other is a large stemmed lanceolate point which appears to be very similar to one from the Big Creek Cave site found at the 20-30 cm level which was dated at 2010 ± 160 B.P. This date falls within Boreson's (2000 BC - AD 1700) 4000 - 282 B.P. time range. Boreson's point, however, was found across the river from the site on the ground surface (1979:22). Another significant link between the South and Middle Forks is the obsidian used for the tools in the three tested sites in the area. Boreson (1979:30) states that obsidian was the 50

Figure 19 Map of South and Middle Fork area sites South Fork sites

I. South Fork Village sites (Ratans 1971)

Z. Mill Flat, Hettinger Rarcn

3. Rockshelter/Picotgraph, Lover South Fork

4. Rebillot Rance hot springs

5. General site indications (cf. Lois Chapman)

6. Teapot Saddle site (=LA Forest Service)

7. Habitat Improvement site (USDA Forest Service)

8. 10-VY-65 (Bergson 1979)

9. Sad Bear timber sale (USDA Fcrest Service)

IC. No Name timber sale (USDA Forest Service)

11. Vulcan Hot Springs (USDA Forest Service)

12. Midvale Complex. east flank, 'east Mountain (Nylle and Ketchum 19W)

Middle Fork sites (Hshousepit, R=rockshelter, P=pictcgaph, T=tipi rugl M=miscellaneoust after ?wrest.: 1978,19-24 and maps 1-7)

I. 10-7Y-28 ? 37. 10-LX-32,33 H.T.P! H 2. 10-VT-76 PI 38. 1C-11Y-85

3. 10 -VS -78 m 39. 10 -Lx-34-36 a

4. 10-X-79 H 40. 10-LH-37 R.R,H

5. 10-CR-316 P 41. 10-VT-20 H,M

6. 10-YT-80 H 42. I0-VT-21-24 R.(21)? 10-YY-81 H 43. 10-u-38 a

6. 10-CR-40 H.T.M 44. 10-LH-39 a

9. 10-VT-87 H,? 45. 10-YY-25 H

IC. 10-VT-9 R.? 46. 10 -L -191 not designated

11. 10-YT-91 R.? 47. 10-VT-71 P!

12. 10-7T-10 M *8. 10.47-72 not designated 13. 10-CR-575 H 49. 10 -VS -69 not designated

14. 10-C3-522 11,? 50. 10-VT-70 not designated

15. 10-YT-11 T 51. 10-LH-190 not designated

16. IC-CR-315 P 52. 10-1/4-189 R,P

17. t0 -7Y -89 P 53. 10-LH-220 R

18. 10-CR-41,42 3,(41)T,M 34. 10-LH-188 not designated

19. 10-CR-44 T,M 55. 10-LH-187 R,P 20. I0 -03-43 R,T,M 56. /0-LX-40 R,P.T,X 21. 10-YY-82 R 57. 10-YY-26 R,M

22. 10-VT-33 not designated 58. IC-LH-186 H

23. 10-7Y-84 notdesmpatel 59. 10-LH-222 P

24. 10 -CR-576 H,1! 60. 10-LH-185 R,P

25. 10-03-314 P 61. 10-vy-67 Ral 26. 10-LH-29.30,31 T,(30)M 62. 10-1,14-41 R,P

27. 10-114-28 H,:.M 63. 10-vY-27 B

28. 10-LH-255-258 R 64. 10-LH-223 P

29. 10-1H-313 R,? 65. 10-YY-90 ? 30. 10-yr-12-15 (12,13)a,(14)m.(15)p 66. 10-LH-224 P

31. 10-LH-27 . 67. 10 -vy-e6 R.? H.11,2,T.1 32. 10-15-259,260 P. 68. 10-m-65

33. 10-1;Y-16-18 P.(17,18)P. 69. 10-ID-462 P 34. 10-LH-301 R 70. 10-ID-202 M

35. 10-Lx-304 11,4 71. 10-22. -295 NOT DESTOLTEZ

36. 10-VT-19 H

Figure 19 continued Figure 19 Map of South and Middle Fork area sites 53 "preferred material" for the artifacts found at10-VY-65. Her Appendix A consists of an "X-Ray FluorescenceAnalysis of Obsidi- an Flakes From 10-VY-65" by LeeSappington of the University of Idaho. According to Sappington's analysis, the obsidian fromthe South Fork site was from Timber Butte "...just westof Banks, Idaho at an approximate distance of 50 miles southwestof Warm Lake" (1979:35). Rossillon (1981:5) indicates that Timber Butte was also the obsidian source forboth the Sheepeater Battleground site on Marsh Creek, and the Red Fish Overhang sitejust south of it, as well as for most of the artifactsobtained from the 1978 Middle Fork Survey.

Untested Sites on the South and Middle Forks By combining site information for the Southand Middle Forks onto one map (Figure 19), this core area of thesouthern tip of the montane region appears to have been heavilypopulated. It must be remembered, however, that the sitesindicated here are only a composite of site surveys, oral traditions,and personal

knowledge. They have, as yet, no temporal references. The most extensive survey work consultedfor the archaeology of the South Fork locale was Pavesic's1978 Archaeological Over- view of the Middle Fork of the Salmon RiverCorridor, Idaho Primi- tive Area. Pavesic reports that "...93 archaeological site survey sheets are recorded in the state files."All of those sufficient- ly described and/or mapped in the report appear onFigure 19. Pavesic broke the sites down into four categories: caves, rockshelters and overhangs, housepit villages, tipirings, and miscel- laneous, in which he includes(1978:23): ...large boulder circles, small rock circles, hunting blinds or pits in talus slopes, undetermined rock structures and a generalized camp designation. The last two categories are dubious since any oneof these features would be exceedingly difficultto identify positively as such on the mere factof its presence. It seems that the tipi 54 ring sites are generally found inhorse, cattle, and(formerly) buffalo areas. All of these animals(as well as elk and deer) like to lie down and roll in large,flat, dry spaces in the hot weather to get rid of insects andto scratch. They pick spots and then these selected spots arefrequented by the whole population. They can easily look much like "tipirings."In his Birch Creek Paper No. 2, Swanson(1964:20) states that "Rings 1 and 4 were selected for excavation. Nothing was found, but this is apparently common with tipi ringsites" (Kehoe 1960; Malouf

1961). The very large number of sites fromPavesic's survey along the Middle Fork corridor, plusthe problematical sites along Big Creek and in the country between thetwo rivers, and the site density indicated by Swisher(1973), and Hill's (1974) Salmon River surveys, must surely lead tothe conclusion that intensive survey of the South Forkcountry would yield similar results Boreson's site on (Figure 18). As it stands now, in addition to the upper South Fork, this studyrevealed only a dozen sites along the river--most of which werethe findings from spot checks prior to timber sales. Five sites to the west of the river are relevant to the river itself, as isquite a bit of country designated by oral tradition to the east. These are marked on Figure 19 by hachure markings. In the late 1950's, Swanson andRice surveyed several sites on the South Fork atand near its mouth. In 1971, Ranere re-did the survey, re-recording Swansonand Rice's sites, and adding 13 sites, some additional ones. Ranere's results were a total of two of which were mapped, buttheir forms contained no notes. Of these 13 sites, three weredesignated as "large", and three as "huge." Bothterms seem to have been appliedto "village" regarded as "campsites." sites. The remaining seven sites being From the site reports, it appearsthat nothing was collected, It was also although in several instancesartifacts were noted. noted that Norm Close(then) of Mackay Bar (one of the boatmen 55 there in the 1960's and early 1970's) haddone some collecting from these sites. No descriptions were given ofany artifacts or tools, and there appeared to be considerable vacillationin the use of the terms "house pit," "depressions,"and "tipi rings." In some instances these featuresare differentiated by size and/or characteristics,and in others the term "tipi rings" seems to have been used as an umbrella category.

All of the six major sites show evidenceof large populations, but also with the exception of #11which had no description other than "...large village site...120mX 60m..." (Ranere, Salmon River Survey site form, August 30,1971, site #10-IH-313), apparent evidences of a variety of featuretypes within each site. Most of these features seem to have been"depressions" of one sort or another, some round andsome rectangular or square. Site #10 is noted as having "...5 bigsquare depressions side by side...enclosed bysome kind of work..." (the word used is illegible) (Swanson and Rice,site report for site #10-IH-17, July 1958). Site #8 reports a rectangular depression "...ca. 20-30' across and at least 2 feet deep"with a notation that the surveyors did not visit this site butnoted it from across the river (Swanson and Rice, survey notes, site #10-IH-16, July 1958).

It is unfortunate that nothingwas collected from any of these sites and that no tests have been madesince all of them lie immediately adjacent to Mackay Bar, whichis a year-round resort. The sites are generally known to the employeesand, of course, constitute an added attraction to the paying guests. In the spring of 1970, Dr. Frank Leonhardy ofWashington State University and Dr. David Rice of theUniversity of Idaho published an article in the Northwest AnthropologicalResearch Notes, Vol. 4, entitled "A Proposed CultureTypology for the Lower Snake River Region, Southeastern Washington,"which may serve as a possible aid in the interpretation of the sites 56 discussed above, specifically the types of sites and depressions mentioned. In dealing with the "Harder Phase" which they date between 500 B.C. and 1300AD (2500 - 682 B.P.), the authors stated that: Two subphases are distinguished, principally on the basis of settlement types and stratigraphy, although there are minor differences in content. All known components of the earlier subphase are camps...; substantial housepit vill ges characterize the later subphase...The villages mark a change in settlement pattern which apparently developed during the earlier subphase. Isolated house pits may occur as early as 800 B.C...., but the concentration of population into villages was much later. The house pits are of varying depth and diameter (1970:14). At the time the Leonhardy and Rice article was published, the Wexplisnime site (45-GA-61) was being excavated and the authors note that this site "...is a village of circular pit houses, each pit about 6 meters in diameter and 50 centimeters deep" (1970:17). They also note that: "One house, strati- graphically above the others, may be a rectangular structure; but the artifacts so far recovered are no different from those in the circular houses" (ibid.). This would seem pertinent in light of the number of rectangular pits noted on the South Fork. In the mid-1970's, Green (n.d.) wrote a Land Use Plan proposal for the South Fork of the Salmon River Planning Unit for the Boise and Payette National Forests. In this proposal he states that "No archaeological sites are listed for this area nor are any sites in the process of being nominated to the N.R.H.P." [National Register of Historic Places]. It was also his feeling that "Archaeological remains may date from as late as 1879 and as early as or earlier than 10,000 years ago." In 1977-78 some archaeological surveying was done by the Forest Service prior to timber sales. In September, 1978, Struthers and Henry surveyed and tested a thirty-two acre area between Little Buckhorn and Homedale Creeks, approximately a 57 mile and a half west of the SouthFork. They then did some test work in a meadow east of LittleBuckhorn. A "black banded obsidian flake" was found on the surface,and in one pit, a bone implement. According to Struther's report"...testing was of sufficient intensity to indicate buriedcultural material is present and probably widely distributed onthe site." The remainder of the Forest Service sites werein the nature of "emergency" surveys prior to sales or roadwork. Most of the surveys yielded surface artifacts. In the 1970's (report undated), LoisChapman of Cascade, Idaho wrote a "History of the OldLandmark Ranger District" for the Cascade Ranger District of theBoise National Forest. At the beginning of the article, Chapman discussesthe evidences of "...aboriginal occupants..." of the area such asartifacts, trails, blazed trees, and "...reportedly aburial site in Bobcat Creek" (p. 1). She goes on to say that: Possible encampments were located inTyndall Meadows, Pen Basin, Landmark, SummitLake, Snowshoe Cabin, Mud Lake, Trout Creek,all of Lower Johnson Creek, Trapper Creek,Wardenhoff Meadows, Riordan Creek, and the EastFork of the Salmon [sic]. As the sites Chapman mentions here allfall within a relatively compact area from the middle courseof the South Fork up-river and to both the east and west, sheundoubtedly was actually referring to the East Fork of theSouth Fork, since the East Fork of the Salmon lies quite a distanceto the east and south of this area, west of the BirchCreek country and the Lemhi been marked on Figure Range. These areas noted by Chapman have 19 with hachure markings. Two other sites indicated on theFigure 19 are both unre- be described here as the corded. The first is an area that will "Mill Flat." This is a large flat bar level withthe river which is its long eastern edge. It is on private property now belonging to R.V. Hansberger of Boise,Idaho (also the owner of 58 the above-mentioned Mackay BarLodge). It is called the Mill Flat because the previous owner, L.A. Hettinger, hadbrought in and set up a steam-powered sawmill on the bar. This flat is part of a good sized working stock and hay ranch and,in addition to the mill, the area was once planted in rye grasswhich was cut and harvested for several years(E.L. Thompson, personal communication), was placer mined, and was used to winter foaling mares and sometimes cattle(personal knowledge as past inhabitant). Ditches have been dug for irrigation in the past, a log pond established, and there are roads and trails acrossit (see Figures 20, 21). These facts are pertinent due to the fact that twocircular depressions which could easily be or not be tipi rings exist on this flat (upper end). Also on this flat, some 50 miles north of these "depressions," is a small semi-circularconfiguration of rocks. As this feature is right on the river bank, it may have remained undisturbed. Possibly similar structures are noted in Swanson and Bryan (1964:3), Swisher(1973:11), and Pavesic (1978:3). Except for the "road" and trail, the ground is coveredwith duff and dried manure. In spite of such great disturbance, the surface did yield some indication of pre- or proto-historic activity. These include obsidian flakes and a triangular basalt biface (Figure 22). The second, and by far most impressive site isapproximately one mile up-river and also on the westside of the river. It is a large pictograph in associationwith a rockshelter located on a small bench approximately100' above the river (Figures 23-28). The shelter and boulder sit at the back of the benchfacing the river, and the site lies between Big Flat andChina Creeks. The river below the bench is both rough and treacherous(Figure 4), however, less than a mile down-river are excellent pools, and there are small intermittent "beaches" on both banks,both up- river and down (Figures 5, 6). 59

Figure 20Mill Flat looking down-river (north) 6o

Figure 21Mill Flat looking up-river(south) Figure 22"Biface" from Mill Flat, lower South Fork Figure 23Trail into pictograph cove (lookingsouth) 63

Figure 24Pictograph/Rockshelter cove (facing river) Figure 25 "Indian Rock" (pictograph) 65

Figure 26Figures on pictograph: note smoke damage, upper right 66

Figure 27Rockshelter near pictograph 67

Figure 28Portion of rockshelter area 68

A local story concerning therockshelter is that during skirmishes between tribes inpre-European times, certain(un- specified) "groups" would use the shelter as aget-away-cum- hideout. Being pursued on the river in canoes,these people would beach their canoes beneaththis cove and come up to the shelter via a secret tunnel whichhad egress near the shelter. It's an exciting and imaginative talebut does not seem likely for several reasons. First, the South Fork is far too capri- cious a river for boating. Although the historic Nez Perce did have a boating tradition(Spinden 1908; Chalfant 1974) it does not appear to have been extensivelyused (see Chapter 4). Second, the shelter's physical location inrelation to the river makes the notion of a tunnel orcave-like chamber seem highly romantic, but unlikely. Taken on the whole, the story seems pursuit via the unlikely. Considering its essentials however, river, a well-concealed andlittle-known beaching spot, and con- cealment in a place unknown orinaccessible to the pursuers, the story could have its foundationin fact. Most old traditions do have, however obscure and embellishedthe facts may have become. The site itself is in fairlygood condition. At one time, a camper chose tobuild his fire directly beneaththe pictograph, thus covering portions of itwith a heavy layer of smoke soot. A local resident discovered thefact, ran the camper off, and scrubbed the rock with cleaningsolutions and a large scrub- be seen, but the art brush! The evidence of fire can still work emerged generally unscathed. There has also been some "digging and scratching" done inand around the shelter, and horse. the flat was a favored grazingspot for at least one local In addition, a small grassy areabetween the site and the river was fenced off andat one time was hand cut forhay annually. The floor of the rockshelteris a layer of dung and duff. A surface investigation revealed aprobable utilized cobble, shells, a red cryptocrystalline"drill," some obsidian flakes, and an old Corona ointment can(Figures 29, 30). Figure 29End-battered cobble; South Fork rockshelter Figure 30Cryptocrystalline "drill"; South Forkrockshelter 71

Comparisons of the "drill" and thebiface (Figure 31) with artifacts photographed in materialsconsulted yielded the following results: the red cryptocrystalline piece maybe comparable to a "tit graver" from theWeitas Creek area (Keeler 1973: Figure 21 top rowcenter); "perforators" from the Meadow Canyon area (Ranere 1971: Plate 9,i-o) or "burins" from the Meadow Canyon area (Ranere 1971: Plate13 y). The tools ranged in age from 470 ± 460 to 2000± 285. The triangular "biface" seems to be comparable to: aBeaverhead B point from the Meadow Canyon area (Ranere 1971: Plate 7,gg,hh; p.18) with a date of 470 ± 460; a "blank" from the Weitas Creek area(Keeler 1973: Figure 21, bottom row, #3); a steep end scraper,variety C from Shoup (Swanson and Sneed1966:28,37, Figure 21); and the triangular knives and triangular pointsfrom the Birch Creek area (Swanson et al.1964: Figure 35, d-f, Figure 36oo). According to Swanson (1964:66), theseknives measured 4.5, 4.6, and 6.4 cm, and the one from theSouth Fork mill flat measures

3.5 cm.

Rock Art Because of the one known rock art site onthe South Fork (see above) and the apparent abundance ofrecorded rock art sites along the Middle Fork(Pavesic 1978: 22, 23), it seems that at least cursory mentionshould be made of that feature of the pre-history of the area. Pavesic's (1978) Appendix A is an overview of the "Rock Art of theMiddle Fork of the Salmon River" by Keo Boreson, who statesthat "At this time, all of the rock art sites recorded orreported along the Middle Fork of the Salmon River arepictographs." According to Boreson, the sites that are "known" on the MiddleFork are between Dagger Creek and the mouth ofthe River. In addition, she mentions that sites "have beenreported" on major tributaries such In addition to her map, as Big Creek, Camas,and Loon Creeks. Boreson provides an excellentlocation/condition table. 72

Figure 31Artifacts from Mill Flat/Rockshelter, lowerSouth Fork 73

In a separate work which deals withrock art in the broader area of the Northwest, Boresonstates that: Pictographs are more widely dispersed than petroglyphs in the Pacific Northwest. The majority of the pictograph sites arelocated near rivers or streams inthe mountainous areas...(1976:101). During their work in the Birch Creek area,Swanson and Bryan reported that "Pictographs occurred in manyrockshelters and one petroglyph was locatedat the mouth of Skull Canyon"(1964:

3). And in his survey of the BuffaloEddy region cf the Snake River, Nesbitt found that: All petroglyphs and pictographs sites are located near the river in easilyaccessible places, not high on the basalt rimsof the Snake River Valley. All glyphs occur in close proximity to archaeologicalhabitation sites (1968:8). Likewise, Swisher (1973:11) says that"Over half of these [ rockshelter] sites also have pictographs." This would seem to be a strong indication that athrough survey of the South Fork locale would in all probability reveal morepictograph sites.

South Fork - Middle Fork Comparisons As mentioned earlier, statementsmade concerning archaeology with reference to the MiddleFork of the Salmon River are for the most part easily translatableto the South Fork. Thus, Pavesic's statement that: The archaeological resources of theMiddle Fork of the Salmon River are of a premiumquality. The intensive prehistoric occupationremains relatively intact due to the region'sinaccessi- bility and minimal land development(1978:15). could read "South Fork" and beequally valid. The important difference in impact to archaeologicalsites between the rivers stems from the comparativeEuro-American patterns of usage dating from the late nineteenthcentury to the present. On both rivers, the major eventwhich led to fully established 74

Euro-American settlement and continued useof the areas was Idaho's great rushes for gold in thelate nineteenth century (Wells 1962; Pavesic 1978). Placer mines on or near pleasant arable pieces of land often evolvedinto homesteads, a great number of which are still inevidence today. From here, then, the character of the two rivers, asreflected in its Euro- American settlements, is divided, and itis more than likely this division which has affectedthe treatment of the archaeological sites in both locales to thepresent time. Pavesic says that "The Middle Forkhas never served as an important American populationcenter" (1978:10,11). He later Middle says that "Preston(1972) reports packtrails through the Fork associated with the mining boom,but little else appears to be happening in our study area"(1978:11,12). Rossillon, however, touches on the agriculturalaspects of the Middle Fork country: Cattle and sheep herding in theMiddle Fork drainage basin has contributed someagricul- tural products to Idaho markets. Nevertheless, the relatively small acreageof productive rangeland has scarcely aided theeconomic development of the Middle Fork regionproper. Because these lands were usedprincipally as summer range, any incomegenerated by livestock sales was circulated in the vicinityof the owner's permanent home base,sometimes over 100 mi. (160 km) away(1981:1). As both authors indicate, theMiddle Fork never really became a permanent white settlement area. It is Carrey and Conley (1980) who properly define the white useof this river; it is a boatmen's river and a vital partof Idaho's tourism economy. Though there are many evidencesof white settlement alongthe to either river corridor, theseinterests were sold out early the the Forest Service or toprivate concerns who built up hunting-fishing-boating tourist trade. As such, this river earlier has been subject since atleast 1935, and undoubtedly (Carrey and Conley 1980:4-5), to constantand repeated threats 75 to its archaeological sites by tourists,boatmen, and packers alike. Even today the many "painted rocks" and theirsurround- ing areas are favorite stopping places forphotographing and "exploring" by the thousands of summer floaters(Louise Maley, personal communication). Such has not been the case on the South Fork. Ranches which evolved out of the very early mining operations are,in many cases, still functioningtoday. Later, at intervals, other (usually smaller) places were settled. While these places above the East Fork of the South Fork are nowlargely the property of the Forest Service, the riversettlements have remained largely as they were, and so, for themost part, are still in private hands. This is not to say that no "looting" ofsites has been done on the South Fork, but merelythat it is of a different nature and intensity. The Middle Fork, by the nature of its highuti- lization, has been picked at and looted notonly by regular passers through, but by literallythousands of untraceable, single-visit tourists from all over the country. In contrast, the very stable, agricultural nature of theSouth Fork may inad- vertently have served to preserve much of whathas been randomly collected over the years. Present and past inhabitants are for the most part easily located and wouldprobably be willing to share any collections they may have. This stability is being threatened,however, from both ends of the river, and with it undoubtedlythe security of any archaeological sites. Upriver, to the south, as previously mentioned, the Forest Service owns muchof the land. Warm Lake is a resort area, and there is hopeof establishing a museum and tourist area at Landmark(Val Simpson, personal communica-

tion). An even greater threat is theMackay Bar Lodge near the mouth of the river. Currently, one of the largest and perhaps most historic of the workingranches on the river is owned by 76 the same individual who now not only has it maintained as a working ranch but also brings in bear and cougar hunters, as well as summer "guests."

Conclusions on prehistory Twenty-five years ago, Liljeblad made the following state-

ment: It would be expected that the Proto-Indians of Idaho, like other ancient peoples west of the Rockies, would have equipped themselves quite differently from the great hunters of the High Plains. They would not have lacked hunting devices, but they would have flaked their flint implements into forms quite different from those of the Folsom and Yuman point-makers (1957:12). Fifteen years later, Swanson was to write the largest andmost exhaustive of his famous Birch Creek monographs. At the very beginning of this he stated: "I went there [Birch Creek] with the possibility in mind that the Northern Shoshonibelonged to the mountains" (1972:5). The evidence would seem to indicate that both men may have been looking in the samedirection, and were probably justified in doing so. The hallmark of Swanson's mountain culture was theBitter- root side-notched point. As was shown in the text, variations of the triangular, stemmed and notched pointhave been found in high country sites continuously for over 10,000 years. By whatever modern, local nomenclature this type ofpoint is designated, it would appear that the over-all basicstyle was highly serviceable to mountain peoples for millennia. There is no evidence to indicate that thepre-historic mountain populations lived anywhere but in thecloseness of the

mountains. Study of pertinent adjacent sites shows thatthese mountain peoples appear to have lived astructured, predictible existence based on seasonal hunting andgathering. The record so far shows that rockshelters appearto have been a preferred type of shelter for the very earlypeoples. 77

Travel in the steep mountainousSouth Fork--and central Idaho--country would, by the very nature ofthe terrain, pre- clude the carrying of many personalpossessions. Certainly the makings for any type of abode wouldhave to be produced "on the spot," and not carried from campsiteto campsite. Although they have not yet beenplaced in a chronological framework, Pavesic's sites on theMiddle Fork indicate two types of dwellings that are very appropriatefor year-round high country living: caves, rocksheltersand overhangs; and housepits. Above the rivers, there are literallyhundreds of "benches," meadows, and high valleys that arenot only habitable but also abundant in resources for humans. Until the high country has been thoroughly surveyed with theidea that it is a viable year- round habitat for humans, there is no wayof stating that early peoples did or did not livecontinously and solely in the mountain country. It is very likely that early highcountry populations lived the same basic pattern ofseasonal travel and subsistence that their (possible) descendantsdid (see followingchapter); and i.e., spending spring and summermonths in the high country the winter months in the"lowlands."These terms must be seen to take on their relativemeanings. When the surrounding peaks tower to 8 - 9000' then the2000' river banks are indeed the "lowlands." Bense (1972:104) attempts tolink the Cascade Phase type settlement pat- of settlement pattern tothe historic Nez Perce

terns. She says (ibid.) that: Each settlement is relativelysmall (less than 50 m indiameter) and most likely supported no more than 20 - 30 persons. At each location a varietyof activities were performed: butchering, cooking, fishing, food and hideprocessing, tool manufacture, and general residence. (Swanson and The same pattern is trueof the Northern Shoshoni determine prehistoric Steward 1970). If archaeologists are to 78 patterns of living not only from the physical siteevidence, but also from inference from the proto-historic peoplesin this central Idaho region, then it is clear that the basicpattern is the same not only for the "Plateau" Nez Perce andthe "Great Basin" northern Shoshoni. And this subsistence pattern seems to be exemplary of the central Idaho high mountainprehistoric peoples. Hogg's 1981 map (Figure 8) drives a wedge between the Plains to the east, the Great Basin to the south, and the Plateau to the west. This wedge has been called the Montane Region. In light of the problems most researchers in thenorth- west have voiced in trying to "type" proposedarchaeological cultures as to the Plateau or the Great Basin, it issurprising that this Montane province was not proposedlong ago. It is not surprising, however, in light of thetraditional reluctance on the part of archaeologists toregard mountainous areas as in- trinsically valuable archaeologically. This thesis refutes the above-stated premise. Research has revealed that the mountain sites within the southern-mosttip of this region are indeed very old. The mountains did not, in fact, function "...chiefly as barriers to movements ofpeoples" (Ranere 1971:54). As will be seen in the following chapter, themountains have traditionally been used as hunting andtrading routes from one area to another. As will also be seen in the followingchap- ters, what mountain people require, theygenerally have access to or are capable of manufacturing. These qualities are essential for the loose, autonomous band organizationdescribed for both the historic Shoshoni and Nez Perceby anthropologists past and present (Steward 1938; Liljeblad 1957;Murphy and Murphy 1960; Trenholm and Carley 1964; Chalfant1974; Ames and Marshall 1980". Perhaps now is the time for anthropologistsand archaeologists to begin serious investigationsof the deep mountains as viable and reasonable areas of humanhabitation. 79

Surely the South Fork would make anexcellent place to ini- tiate such investigations. In due course, the area will undoubtedly be opened to tourism. Before this happens, an extensive survey should be plannedand carried out. Perhaps, in recognizing a montaneregion, archaeologists will feel more free to examineanother, but equally viable theory of migration--that it isequally feasible for people to have migrated out of mountains asinto them. In investigating mountain sites, the researchershould be aware that mountain peoples may do some seasonaltraveling around but, by and large, they do this within the regionof the mountains. They generally have little need or desire to goout. More research such as Shawley's"The Nez Perce Trails" (1977), which will be discussed in thefollowing chapter, should be initiated. If mountains were, indeed,used extensively as trade and travel routes, tradewould have been brought to the mountain peoples. In fact, Haines (1955,1970) indicates that the Shoshoni brought the firsthorses to the Nez Perce on a route through the South Forkcountry. Since the Montane Region isphysiographically different from the other regions surroundingit, it would be appropriate to assume that any cultureindigenous to and/or emanating from it would also be different,and unique. In summarizing his initial theories leading to hisextensive Birch Creek studies, Swanson left a valuable insightinto the study of and search for mountain prehistory: Rather than examine culture inrelation to environment as a study of twoecological systems, I began by assuming thatculture and environment formed a common structure(1972:6). 80

CHAPTER IVPROTO-HISTORIC AND HISTORIC INDIAN USE OFTHE AREA

Although, as was pointed out in the previouschapter, there is ample evidence of human habitation overthousands of years in the South Fork locale, it is not presentlypossible to make a positive statement to the effect thatthose prehistoric populations in the area did, indeed, give riseto the historic ones. Conjecture is the best we have and, asPavesic has said, "It may prove to bearchaeologically impossible to directly correlate historic populations over thousandsof years" (1978:33). In looking at early Indian use of theSouth Fork and its environs, the immediate questionsbecome: 1) Which group(s) laid claim to the area; 2) For what purposes wasit used; 3) If the region was, indeed, claimed andused by more than one group, what function did it assume--council area, wararea, wintering place, hunting area, refuge, home;and 4) Was it shared or dis- puted? Literature and research indicate thatthis area was used predominantly by two groups of people: the Great Basin-oriented Shoshoni and the Plateau-orientedNez Perce (Spinden 1908; Steward 1938; Liljeblad 1957; Swanson1972; Chalfant 1974). These two peoples are also reputedto be traditional enemies (Spinden 1908; Steward 1938; Haines 1955;Chalfant 1974). Probably the earliest factualdocumentation of the Shoshoni and Nez Perce territoriality is a mapfrom the Lewis and Clark collections which was made for Lewisand Clark by some "Chopun- nish" (Nez Perce) on the Flat HeadRiver in May of 1806(Wheat territory is located to 1962:42). On this map the Chopunnish the north of the [now] SalmonRiver, and the Sho-sho-ne terri- conclusive, it tory to the south. While this is certainly not does give a substatial indicationthat at some time the Salmon River must have been used as aboundary of sorts.

Further search of the literature,however, seems to indicate 81 River apparently that the east/west transectof the main Salmon (Liljeblad served as a mutuallyunderstood line of demarcation All of the 1957; Rigsby 1965; Haines1970; Chalfant1974). above authors, as well asnumerous others,have given descrip- both groups. tions of the respectiveterritories occupied by of these By making a singlecomparative map of a number descriptions, an approximatepattern of territoriality emerges. Salmon In relation to the longeast/west transect of the main from the west River, it appears that theNez Perce dominated of the Salmon side of the Bitterrootsdown to the north banks (including all of the Clearwatercountry), from the drainages and Blue Mountain of the Little SalmonRiver west to the Wallowa the Snake River. country, and up to thePalouse River country on dominated the coun- The Shoshoni, on the otherhand, seem to have the Hell's Canyon try from the easternbanks of the Snake in the Snake River, allof the area, south ofthe Salmon River to the Yellowstone Pahsemeroi and Lemhi Rivercountry and over into As stated in the pre- and southern Montanamountainous regions. of Hogg's(1981) Mon- vious chapter, it isthis southernmost tip itself (see Figure8). tane Province withwhich this paper concerns have been used more And it is just thatcountry which seems to by both the Sheepeater or less jointlyand by mutual agreement Shoshoni and the NezPerce. indigenous cul- As the archaeologicalrecord has shown, the long term and stable tures in this area appearto have been both studied mountain-dwelling populations. Of the two populations indicate that the Northern for this thesis,research appears to habitation (Lilje- Shoshoni fit easily intothe same pattern of 1968; Swanson 1972). blad 1957; Trenholmand Carley 1964; Goss originally Swanson and Liljebladboth saw the Shoshoni as an stable Mountain culture. According to Swanson, Perhaps better than anyother Northern Shoshoni illustrate the group thetukudeka [Sheepeaters] The Moun- mountain character ofthese people. tain Sheepeaters arethe basis forestablishing 82

the pattern of Northern Shoshoni culture because they were without horses, lived in the mountains summer and winter, and because the nametukudeka may be 'generic for all NorthernShoshoni (Swanson 1972:11). Liljeblad says that, while other groups' living habits changed according to the influences of the times, the Tukudeka remained stable and "...unchallenged by other Indians..."(1957:99). A young Idaho man whose mother is a Sheepeater Shoshoni stated that the Sheepeater people remained in the mountains secluded from other people--not only whites and other Indians in general, but other groups of Shoshoni as well--because they were pacifists. They disliked and disapproved of the continuous warfare not only between the whites and the Indians, but also earlier between the various Indian tribes and groups(Vic Mann, personal communication, 1980). Steward, citing from informants (1938:193), says that "The small mountain villages of the Salmon River region engaged in no warfare." In describing the typical weaponry of the Plateau, Liljeblad states that onthe whole, "...warfare had little place among the Plateau peoples in early times" (1957:30,31). In the territorial area that is the subject of this thesis, no mention has been found in the literatureof wars having been fought. Though the area is quite large, it is, for the most part, very steep and not favorable for general warfare.It is not good country for raids. Warfare here would best be a defen- sive action on the part of the inhabitants againstundesireable outsiders, which does not appear to have been the tradition of

the Sheepeaters. They appear to have preferred living on a "live and let live" basis. This, then, seems to rule out the region having been utilized as a war area. In a discussion of the Plateau traditions ofterritoriality, Ray (1939:16) states that "The trans-river boundaries arequite

precise in all cases. This is more or less inevitable since villages are small and situated close together."He goes on to 83 explain, however, that Although a particular fishing station 'belongs' to a particular village, any friendly person, either acquaintance or stranger, is welcome to use it. But the village with territorial rights over the station is quitedefinitely the visitor's host (ibid.). As was mentioned earlier, any anthropological or historical discussion of the territorial boundaries of the Nez Perceand the Tukudeka Shoshoni seems to have automatically taken on thebias of the writer for "his" favorite tribe. Although a number of these authors quote Spinden's 1908 work, none ofthem appear to have noted his most revealing statement about therelative Nez Perce/Shoshoni boundaries. He says that "There seems to have been a considerable strip of neutral ground betweenthe Nez Percgs and their traditional enemies, the Shoshoni on the south..." (1908:173). Research on the subject among the authors who followed Spinden indicates that is exactly whatthe case appears to be. For this paper, then, the following boundarieswill be des- criptive of both a proposed Tukudeka homeland(the northern extent of Shoshoni territory) and as the areaof neutrality between the Tukudeka and the Nez Perce: to the east, the northward- flowing upper Salmon River; to the south,the South Fork of the Payette River; to the west the Payette Lakes; and tothe north, the main Salmon River (Figure32). While the region itself does not appear tohave been used as a general meetingplace, Haines (1970:47) and Chalfant(1974:79) both make reference to locations on thewestern edges of this region which were used by the Shoshoni andNez Perce to trade with one another. According to Haines, these trading--rendezvous--areas were located at the"...headwaters of the Weiser and Payette Rivers" (ibid.). The headwaters of the Weiser River are up between the westernboundaries of the region defined in Figure 7 and east and slightly south of the SevenDevils country 84

SomtA "Pork ,syst.te.r/v"

Figure 32Proposed Tukudeka homeland and area of neutrality between Tukudeka and Nez Perce 85 which seems to have been delegatedboth as Nez Perce and as Shoshoni territory, according to theauthor's research (Rigsby 1965; Liljeblad 1957; Haines 1970; Chalfant1974). The headwaters of the Payette River,however, are some distance to the east and in the vicinity of thePayette Lakes which Chalfant states were used when the Shoshoni"...met with the Nez Perce there for fishing and horse racing"(1974:79). This thesis will not discuss the"hunting and gathering" type of subsistence utilized byboth the Shoshoni and Nez Perce in the area, since this topic hasbeen exhausted by literally every person who hasresearched either group of people,and since given the temporal and geographicproveniences, it would appear to be the singularmost logical mode of subsistencefor Nelson any people there,regardless of cultural affiliations. (1969:5) sums it up very neatly: ...those areas which are peripheralto the central portion of the ColumbiaBasin have tended over the last seven or eightmillenia to be ecologically most favorableto hunting and gathering societies, a tendencyevident in archaeological, ethnographic,and early historic documents. Both cultural groups engaged inpredictable yearly cycles of mobility dictated by thefood to be harvested or sought at and groups moved to the time. Camas was an important staple, the known available camasprairies when the bulbs wereready. Although migrations to the camasfields are practically synonymous with any ethnographicstudy of the Nez Perce, there is little mention of the camasdigging cycle of the Sheepeaters' "...essentially a hunting year. Liljeblad (1957:96) calls them people..." and adds that they weregreat and skilled hunters. He further states that theyhunted big game all year, and were the "...most skilled hunters onfoot of all the Idaho Indians..." all As to plant foods, Liljebladsimply says that "Practically by the food plants which arereported to have been utilized Idaho Indians, and a few morebesides, are found within the 86 territory once inhabited by thetilkudeka" (1957:95). Rossillon (1981:5) says that the Sheepeaters werenot fre- quent visitors at the Camas Prairie to thesouth of their territory, which was a popular digging place forother Shoshoni, most likely because there were equally productive large camasfields close to home. If they did choose to travel south to theCamas Prairie, she feels that it was for the purpose oftrading their bighorn sheep hides, rather than for root digging. This is in keeping with both the informationof the Sheep- eater resource person, Vic Mann, and withLiljeblad's research. Both sources praised the furrier skills of theSheepeaters very highly (V.M. 1980, personal communication;Liljeblad 1957:97). Liljeblad states that these people were wearingtailored clothing before the Plains style of dress spreadto the West (ibid.). Some time prior to 1913, a dentist namedWilliam Alonzo Allen made a trip to the country aroundMedicine Wheel, Wyoming, and spent a good deal of time there with someSheepeater people in their village. Since he didn't write his account until some time after the trip, parts of hisbook seem somewhat fanciful (although changes in both writing styles and attitudes mustbe taken into account). Unlike any writer or researcher, other than Liljeblad a half a century later, Allen appearsto have had a genuine respect and admiration for thesequiet people. Allen describes the beautifully workedrobes and clothing the people wore, and the fine ram'shorn bows (1913:18-72). As to the people themselves, he made some veryinteresting observa-

tions. In a general description he says: Small in stature and living among the clouds, this proud race lived a happy life far removed from all other Indians (1913:7). He describes the women as "mostbeautiful," and says that the people are very short and look likeAlaskan Indians. Perhaps the most interesting observationAllen makes is that "The Sho- shones seem to be a branch of theSheep Eaters [sic] who 87 afterwards intermarried with the Mountain Crows, a tall race of people who gave the Shoshones a taller and better physique"

(ibid.). Trenholm and Carley refer to the Shoshoni as ...stocky-built, dark skinned, full-featured highlanders..." (1964:vii). No realistic consideration of the Sheepeaters gives the indication that these people were "making do" in the mountains because there was no where else to hide. These people were simply living, not hiding, in an environment that they had known and cherished for centuries, perhaps millenia. Swanson summarizes the situation thus: The traditional view is that the Northern Shoshoni were in a marginal position and, if one starts in the center of the Great Basin, then indeed they were. However, if one starts with the Rocky Mountain ecological system (Daubenmire, 1943) which encompases the intermountain region and regulates plant and animal distribution for food-collecting peoples, then the Great Basin is internally marginal to the flanking mountains. In this situation the Northern Shoshoni are on the center line of the system...The consequence is that the Northern Shoshoni and related peoples spread away from rather than toward the Rocky Moun- tains...It is more probable that their origins are on this axis than in the margin(1972:9). If one accepts that the Sheepeater Shoshoni were, indeed, a stable, mountain people then pertinent to the region discussed in this thesis, two questions arise: 1) Where do the Nez Perce fit into this pattern? and 2) To which cultural area should the peoples of this region be assigned? Since research has not indicated that the study area was in any way a bonafide part of the Nez Perce domain, the Nez Perce are regarded here merely as the primary "foreign" users

of the area. Although Chalfant (1974) cites a number of instances of Nez Perce use of the region adjacent to the South Fork of the Salmon River, such as the East Fork of the South Fork and the Johnson Creek area, two factors must be borne in 88 mind when reading his report. First, the use he mentions is clearly transient use. The second is that Chalfant was employed to do this work by the Indian ClaimsCommission on behalf of the Nez Perce. It is not so much an ethnographicresearch as an attempt to show current Nez Perce rightsto certain territories by indications of past use. The striking thing about the SheepeaterShoshoni and the Nez Perce is not the differences between thembut the basic similarities. Both groups adhered to essentially the samepredictable movement cycle during the year. These travels in both instances were predicated upon the seasonand location of vegetable, game, and fish food resources and, within thosebounds, upon the need and, to some extent, the preference of theband for any given resource (Liljeblad 1957;Walker 1968; Brauner 1976; Ames and Marshall 1980; Rossillon1981). In both societies too, the generalsocial organization was highly similar, particularly before thecoming of the Europeans. Indeed, two authors, one speaking ofthe Shoshoni and the other of the Nez Perce, have made parallelobservations. Liljeblad (1957:33), in discussing the Shoshoni, says that: The physiography of the country whichthe Northern Shoshoni inhabited is morevaried than the country of the Nez Perce and theCour d'Alene; among the Shoshoni, theadaptation to contrasting environments resulted in slight localvariations between different groups as totheir habits of life. Nearly a quarter of a century later,in an excellent work on Nez Perce settlement patterns, Amesand Marshall (1980:29) stated that Because settlement patterns reflect'environmental constraints,' and personsspeaking /nimiputimpt/ [sic] occupied a variety of environments, no singular adjustmentto the environment was possible. The relationship of the people with their environmentmust therefore be understood in termsof location. 89 been The settlement pattern inboth cases appears to have small one of small related groupsliving together, with other related groups living at arelative short distance, which was dictated by food availability(Brown 1926; Steward 1938; Lilje- blad 1957; Swanson 1970, 1972;Anastasio 1972). As the social grouping was similar, so wasthe leadership pattern(at least judgment in pre-Europeantimes). In either case, a man whose proved sound and who had therespect of his group wasgenerally This the chosen headman of the group,its spokesman and leader. spiritual person was not, however,generally the acknowledged leader (Steward 1938; Walker1968). Individual spirituality throughguardian spirit power and basis of correctness of living caneasily be identified as the which pan-Indian spirituality. These are the cornerstones upon Indian Spiritual life is builtand, based on these two,each tribal group has its ownformal set of broaderspiritual beliefs Navajo, the Hopi, and and rituals. Many nations, such as the language, the Kwakiutl have veryelaborate religions which, like tend to unite the people as anation. Such was not the case among the peoplesof this study area. Liljeblad (1957:31) says that"The leading motive in the individual religion of the PlateauIndians was the desire in every And Swanson to receive help and powerfrom the spiritualworld." feature of and Steward(1970:115) state that "A very fundamental absence of Basin- Plateau Shoshoneansociety is the remarkable nuclear families." any traditionalinstitutions other than Looking at Hogg's 1981 mapdepicting a Montane Province, basic lifestyle and reflecting on thenumber of similarities in in the proto between the Shoshoni andNez Perce, particularly anthropo- historic times, it seemsincreasingly astounding that "fit" these logists and archaeologistscontinue to attempt to The southern and groups into theBasin or Plateau culture. slightly expanded to western delineations ofthe map might be complete and cohesive region, as indicate a geographically more 90 has been proposed onthe following page. inhabited the steep If the NorthernShoshoni have, indeed, suggests, it would mountains for millenia asthe above research reason oranother, at seem reasonalbeto assume that for one of the culture mayhave some point intime, various members Any number of reasonsmight chosen to leave theimmediate area. better, or differenttypes of be postulated: search for more, band(s) or cultural food; hostile actionsby members of other group(s); expulsion of one groupby another forviolation(s) outside one's owncultural of established socialnorms; marriage conditions; and simplecuriousity by group; changesin climatic the adventurous. prehistory, Goss In a discussion ofUtaztecan (Shoshoni) originally "...mountain, quotes Taylor thatthese peoples were whose migrations weregenerally or at least ahighland people..." flanks of the west- "...from north to southprimarily along the from Taylor1961:76). ern Cordillera"(Goss 1968:9-10, quoting to state that: In support of thisopinion, Taylor goes on ...although many Utaztecansare desertdwellers, and, by far the greaternumber are highlanders more significantly,within virtually every linguistic subgroup ofUtaztecans there are dessert) both highland andlowland (mountain and peoples (ibid.). Perce inhabit the Both the SheepeaterShoshoni and the Nex country is more mountainous regions,although the Sheepeater The Nex Perce rugged than that ofthe neighboringShoshoni. gregarious and expan- appear to havebeen, on the whole, a more Seasonal trips to the sionistic peoplethan the Sheepeater. social function as an camas fields seemto have been as much a the horse from theShoshoni, economic one. Once they acquired maximum) the Nez Perce began (the animal was utilizedto its hunt buffalo and to traveling incredibledistances regularly to Both Haines andLiljeblad com- trade with the Plainspeople. Nez Perce. Haines says that ment on theadaptability of the 91 "Many times, the Nez Perces showed their intelligence and adaptability by borrowing new weapons, new tools, and new cus- toms from friend and foe alike" (1955:18). Liljeblad also re- fers to the contrasts between the two groups of people: Cultural contrasts between the Shoshoni in southern Idaho on the one hand, and the Nez Percg and Coeur d'Alene on the other existed proportionately as their subsistence types extended farther into adjoining areas in opposite directions (1957:25). Further on he states that "Many cultural traits that caused local differences were imported from neighboring areas" -(ibid.) In 1965, Rigsby made a very clear statement regarding the general Sahaptin-Plateau attitude toward "territoriality": Differences in the productive capacity or con- trol of resources of local groups were smoothed out to some extent by trade and gift exchanges with other local groups and by permitting individuals and small parties of other local groups to share access to resources and territories. Such sharing was always with the explicit permission of the host group (1965:26). Nearly a decade later, Chalfant gave an excellent description of the extent to which the Nez Perce traveled around yearly, citing areas as far south of their "homelands" as the Big Payette Lake, Rapid River, Boulder Creek, "...South Fork of the Salmon River and its tributaries, particularly Johnson Creek on the East Fork, and other streams east of McCall, Idaho; Snake River as far south as Boise River..." (1974:78). Apparently the practice of trading to the hosts for hunting and fishing privileges was a standardized one among the mountain peoples and would seem to have flourished between the Nez Perce and the Sheepeaters. It appears, then, that not only did the Sheepeater people not "go out" (of the deep mountains) much, but they actually had little need to do so. The ever moving and trading Nez Perce must have brought trade goods and gossip to last a season when they came through, and as the Sheepeaters were masters of their 92 environment, no doubt took useful knowledge fromthem when they left. Curiously enough, Chalfant, before making furtherstatements about the regions south of the Salmon Riverused by the Nez Perce (quoted above), states that "Other parts of the Salmon and Snake river country were used by some groups, butspecific trails into this more southerly region are not known today"(1974:90). Shawley's (1977) extensive work on the Nez Percetrails corro- bates this completely. In his Nez Perce Trails (1977), Shawley has doneextensive work combining standard background research withdata collected "...from informant interviews and on-the-groundinspection"

(1977:1). His appendix consists of an extensive list oforiginal Nez Perce place and location names along with theircurrent English names and their translations.As regards the study area of this thesis, two interesting pieces ofinformation emerge from Shawley's work. First, in the introduction, Dr. Sprague of the University of Idaho states that the work is a"...study of known trails within the original territoryof the Nez Perce tribe..." (ibid.). The map on page 8 delineates the "Approxi- mate Areas of Research" and indicates asouthern boundary (squared off) at approximately the east/west course of themain

Salmon River. Second, Shawley shows the entire network oftrails, including one which goes through the(current) Elk City area, crosses the main Salmon at what is now Mackay Bar,and follows the South Fork of the Salmon River beyond its headwatersinto the Middle Fork of the Payette River country. Another trail of importance to this study comes off the SouthFork of the Clearwater, south to the main Salmon where it also crossesthe river at Mackay Bar, then goes up the hill and across the ChamberlainBasin country, down Big Creek and across the Middle Fork ofthe Salmon River. The former trail is one of "...a southernset of trails extend- ing into Shoshone-Bannock and Paiutecountry..." and the latter 93 is described as a trail "...which led toShoshone-Bannock and Paiute country..." (1977:7). They are listed as having been used also by the Walla Walla, Umatilla, and Cayuse"...for trading and raiding..." (ibid.). The remainder of the work is devoted to individualsmall scale maps of the various individual trails andsections of trails showing such particulars as huntinggrounds and campsites. In two separate notations (1977:90,98), Shawleymentions having had notes "withheld" or taken concerning theElk City region. It is from this region that the above-mentionedtrails branch

out. Shawley's reconstructed network of trails throughthe Nez Perce country and down into the Sheepeater countrycertainly shows the area as something other than a refugeharboring a few frightened people. On the contrary, it gives the feeling of a well-inhabited and much used area. No doubt, if someone should attempt a similar project on the area southof the Salmon River, i.e., in the study area of this thesis,interviewing Shoshoni and perhaps again Nez Perce people, a similarnetwork of travel would be brought to light. Indeed, Swanson's description of the west to east travels of the Syywooki'imountain Shoshoni in 1895 tends to corroborate this idea: ...This small remnant of a band lived in a mountain basin just north and west of what is now Banks, Idaho...When they lost their leader, this group did not move south andtake the road, such as it was, across thesouthern edge of the Snake River Plain. Instead these people moved on foot north and then east through the forestedmountain region south of the Salmon River. They turned southward to Fort Hall only after theyhad reached some point near the westernedge of Camas Meadows, which lies to the east of Birch Creek(1972:13). As will be seen in the following chapter,the Sheepeaters did not simply relinquish their mountainswhen Europeans

arrived. As with countless other groups andtribes, they were torn from their mountains and takenultimately to live in the 924, dry barren country around what iscalled Fort Hall, Idaho. That event, called the "Sheepeater War,"will be discussed later. No evidence was found during this studyto indicate that there was ever actually and dissentionbetween the Sheep- eaters and the miners and earlyranchers. There is no doubt that mountains havebeen inhabited for longer than mere centuries. In the case of the area which includes this study region, it would seemto be time to begin regarding the mountain peoples as just that,mountain peoples, rather than trying desperately tomake their lifestyles fit in with the Basin or the Plateau. In looking at other more familiar mountain populations such as thepeople of the Ozarks and the Appalachians, the Biami of NewGuinea, and the people of the Dolpo region of Tibet, to name afew, several "universal" traits can be noted which would seemto apply to true mountain peoples through time and across cultures. They are rugged, tough individuals with a quiet senseof pride; they know their ecology intimately and work within itsframework; while they enjoy the visits of outsiders, theyhave little desire or need to go out of their own territoryto visit or seek help; they are exceptionally self-sufficient; and themountainous areas that surround them represent more to themthan simply the territory

they inhabit. Perhaps the recognition of theMontane Province would simply clarify problems with whichanthropologists and archaeologists working in this region have beeneither struggling with or

shelving. 95

CHAPTER VNON-INDIAN POPULATIONS

is Although white infiltrationof the Idaho Indian country generally thought of in termsof the second half ofthe nine- the teenth century, it actually goesback nearly to the end of Clark's expedition met eighteenth century. In 1805, Lewis and called the both the Shoshoni and theNez Perce (whom they "Chopunnish") (Hosmer 1903). According to Murphy and Murphy [sic] his- (1960:296), the "Fur Period" hadbegun and "Shoshone American tory became inextricablyconnected with that of the for some thirty years. frontiers." This period was to last made In 1811, the Astoria partyunder Captain Bonneville territory (Steward its trip down the SnakeRiver through Shoshoni River 1938:5) after having already comethrough the upper Salmon the vicinity of the country to the northand east, probably in Walker present day Mackay andChallis, Idaho(Irving 1950:70). the Nez states that by 1811 there werealready trappers living in to set up trade business Perce villages. In 1812 McKenzie tried Nez Perce [were] firmly among the NezPerce and in 1813 "...the Company's post on the engaged in trading withthe North West Fur upper Columbia..."(1968:32). Hall (1834) and By the latter half ofthe 1830's, both Fort The two decades the Spalding Mission(1836) had been established. the period of between 1840 and1860 are generally regarded as out, in what be- westward migrationalthough, as Steward points just "passing through" on came Idaho,people were generally this time (1938:5). their way to bettersettling places during Indians came "The great crisis inthe history of the Idaho (Liljeblad 1957:5). This was in the crucial yearsof the 1860's" that populated the "Golden Era," theBoom Town Era, the era boomeranging Idaho with its non-Indianpopulation, and through a For, when gold was settlement pattern carvedit out as a state. already crossed discovered in Idaho Territory,many who had 96 Idaho's desolate Snake River Plain enroute to Oregon's lush Willamette Valley or the California gold rush, now came "boomeranging" back "east" to Idaho's great gold rushes. A quarter of a century before the Sheepeaters were removed from the central Idaho mountains, those same mountains were "discovered" by white men. More correctly speaking, the gold in those mountains was discovered. In 1852, E.D. Pierce (for whom Pierce, Idaho is named) came into the Nez Perce country, set himself up as a trader, and went looking for gold. Very early in 1860, he found it on the North Fork of the Clearwater, deep in the Nez Perce territory. By that date, it was generally known in northern Idaho that there was gold in the Salmon River country to the south aswell. In his obsession, Pierce ignored the fact that the white settlers did not want people to prospect in the area, because the power- ful Nez Perce would undoubtedly go to war if this should happen

(Wells 1962). According to Walker (1968:13) through the acquisition of horses from the Shoshoni sometime shortly after 1700, the Nez Perce rose steadily from their small loose band organization to a position of strong leadership. Anastasio notes that "Some white observers thought that the Nez Perce put pressure on other groups at the meetings connected with the treaty of1855" (1972:

186). Pierce got together only a handful of men and furtively crossed the Nez Perce boundaries. In the fall, he panned some gold out of Canal Gulch in the Orofino Creeek country. Pierce was extremely determined to get a miningdistrict set up because ...even though white men were barred bothby law and by treaty from crossing the reservation, Pierce's miners returned over the main Indian trail to Walla Walla where they prepared to recruit and equip another mining expidition which did not actually leave Walla Walla until November 14 (Wells 1962:3). By December of that same year (1860), the town of Pierce was 97 under construction inside the forbidden reservation borders,and all of the Northwest, including California, had heard of the strike (Wells 1962).

The Chinese It was in 1861 that Lewiston, which was to become a major inland point of debarcation for those headed for the rugged central Idaho mining country, was established. According to Elsensohn (1979:14), "It was not until March 1865 that Chinese reached the new town."Like the majority of the white miners, most of the Chinese miners had no aspirations of settling permanently, they were merely looking for fastwealth. The Chinese, however, left families at home in China and came to the gold fields to get enough money to 1) send home to thosefam- ilies to improve their style of living and status, and2) simul- taneously save enough to return to China and the family wealthy and respected men (Trull 1946). If a Chinese could not or did not care to work directly in the gold fields, he turned tosuch allied professions as laundering, truck gardening,housekeeping, cooking, and a number of other jobs that the white population would not perform but wanted done (ibid.). By the mid-1860's, according to newspaper accounts, the Chinese were coming into the "Upper Country" in large numbers. Either from the persuasion of the California'49ers, who brought with them the mining distric and mining law.Small, individual groups of Chinese(always regarded by the white miners as a threat to their own probableprosperity) were already working in these districts, and it became seeminglystandard procedure to exclude them from the mining fields. Although Pierce and his group arrived in November,1960, prepared to settle only in what became the OrofinoDistrict, on January 5, 1861 the entire district held a mass meetingto set up their laws for the Nez Perce and Salmon River mines. Article 14 of the ensuing laws stated that "Chinese orTartars are hereby 98 prohibited from working these mines,under any and all circum- broaden stances" (Elsensohn 1979:24). In April it was decided to and confirm this resolution sothat it finally read That the resolutions as passedat a prior meeting in regard to thecomplete exclusion of the Chinese and Asiatic racesand the South Pacific Ocean Islandersfrom the mines be confirmed(ibid.). This practice would become commonin virtually every Idahodis-

trict. It was not until the summer of1862 that James Warren discovered gold in the rough, highcentral Idaho country between the South Fork of the SalmonRiver and the Secesh(seesesh; named by the Secessionists orRebels of the CivilWar) (Wells information 1962; Elsensohn 1979). There is very little written status) and about Warren (Figure1) (currently near "ghost town" what can the South Fork country in anyphase of its history, and be found seems to be merely anincidental addition to whatever the main subject matter mightbe. In attempting to research theChinese in Warren and their of infor- impact on the study area ofthis thesis, this paucity mation dwindles even further. Trull (1946), in an exhaustive study of the Chinese in Idahoduring the gold rush and mining then, like others era, mentions Warrenat most, three times, and before her, only incidentally. When James Warren made hisstrike and the district was established, two towns came intoexistance whose names mirrored Washington and the political sentimentsof their inhabitants: before Washington was Richmond. It was not for some 20 years 1973). to become "Warrens"(presently Warren) (Schell Information as to when and inwhat numbers the Chinese came into the into the Warren Districtand when they were permitted infor- district is highly conflicting. Elsensohn (1979:76), from been living mation given by a whiteex-miner who claims to have the district in Warren during1872, states that in that year 99 voted to allow the Chinese to come in. According to this information, at that time there were only 400 men in thedistrict and they felt that they had pretty well cleaned thegold out of their holdings but still wanted to make money out ofthem. To this end, the Chinese were allowed in and claims weresold to them for as much as $8,000. According to Trull, the Florence and Warren diggings already had over 1200 Chinese in 1872 and in "lateryears" the Warrens diggings were "practically owned" by the Chinese(1946:

9,37). Records from the Idaho County Courthouse and further information from Elsensohn indicate that many claims werebought and/operated by the Chinese prior to 1872.This is reasonable since Warren and the adjacent South Fork country arevast, steep and wild. Considering the geography of the area, and the paucity of information, most of which is in conflict, anypopulation figures whould be regarded simply asestimates and not as fact. At any rate, the Chinese who stayed in Warren seemto have been fairly well established by the late1880's. This is something of an anomaly in light of the militantand successful, 1885-1886 campaign throughout Idaho to "rid Idaho of theChinese"

(Trull 1946; Elsensohn 1979). It should be noted that the only thing aboutthis movement that was sudden was the concentrated efforts by manyprominent Idaho newspaper editors and the seeming solidarityof Idaho's white citizenry to expel the Chinese immediatelyand totally. It is apparent from most contemporary accountsthat there was a general and widespread anti-Chinese sentimentall over the coun-

try. This sentiment was by no means adopted by everywhite American. Many were supportive of the Chinese, andnot all of these were patronizing in their support. As early as 1869, the following was published in the ScientificAmerican: The United States might as well look thesub- ject of Chinese labor squarely in theface and make timely provision to absorb andutilize this new accession to our population. Some 100

are bitterly opposedto the coming of the Chinese. This opposition is based onground- less prejudice. The policy of the Government has hitherto opened thedoors of immigration to people of every race andclime. Shall we now close it on theMongolian, and if so, why? We have heretofore spokenof the intelligence, industry, frugality and order-lovingdisposi- tion of the Chinese. Since we assert that the Chinese character possesses in aneminent degree the qualities we have everbeen taught to regard as the elements ofcitizenship, we do not see how it is possible,with any show of con- sistency to attempt, eitherby persecution or legislation, to shut our doorsagainst them (cited by Elsensohn 1979:12). "rid As previously stated, despitethe rest of Idaho having his- itself of the Chinese" by1886, quite late in Idaho's mining envi- tory the Chinese were livingand working in Warren and its the South Fork and Warren rons. Even today, the majority of people still refer to theChinese as "Chinamen" or"Chinamens" (personal observation). Equally erroneously, these samepeople generally relate but never that the "Chinamens" onlyworked the placer diggings, the quartz claims, due toreligious beliefs whichprohibited them from going underground. Such a statement is immediately suspect in the light ofboth Trull's (1946) andElsensohn's (1979) statements that 1) the typicalChinese house was generally semi-subterranean, and 2) that inmost instances the opiumdens drew up were locatedunderground. The fact is that the whites mines, and, the laws prohibiting theChinese from working in the was opened to as has beenmentioned earlier, whenever an area leasing the Chinese it was simplyfor the purpose of selling or to them already worn out orgreatly depleted placerclaims. Chi- Almost no mention is madeof Chinese celebrations or cited give a plethora nese life inWarren, although the sources traditionalism of the of examples and instancesof the vibrant Chinese, no matter in what areathey happened to beliving. and only three Scant information wasrelated by informants, 101 recorded instances were found. These were cited by Elsensohn (1979:80) from the Idaho County Free Press,of July 12, 1889, to a big Fourth and September, 1887. The first is in reference jointly by of July parade in Warrenwhich was apparently put on Accord- the Chinese and CharlieBemis (whose wife wasChinese). the parade ing to the article, some200 Chinese participated in which boasted gongs, dragonflags, and stringedinstruments. The second reference is from aSeptember, 1887 article about Accord- a Feeding-the-Dead ceremonygiven by the Warren Chinese. butchered and ing to the article, manyhogs and chickens were barbecued, carried out to thecemetary to the dead, and then brought back into town for afeast. born In a 1979 interview, PearlWilley Hitchcock, who was talks about her on the South Forkat the turn of the century, called) in 1878 father first coming intoWarrens (as it was then at the age of 19: He come in the spring. He come around the horn and around Portlandand come overland. He come in with a bunchof people bringing a bunch of hogsinto the butcher there in Warrens. ...You see, there was alots of Chinamens in that country atthat time. in Not all the Chinese in thisstudy area lived and mined roughly fifteen miles fromWarren to Warren. It is a distance of the Smead either the (then) SmithRanch on the South Fork or Ranch, up-river from Smith's onthe South Fork. At the top of northerly Warren Summit the road towardthe river forks, and the to the Smead fork leads to the SmithRanch, the southerly one

Ranch. Approximately half way downthe Smith Ranch fork is asloping This meadow is re- meadow now called HaysStation (Figure33). from which produce puted to have been anextensive Chinese garden, According to the informant, was taken in tothe miners at Warren. established by Pearl Willey Hitchcock, thisgarden was "probably" Carrey (1968:34) says the Chinese in the early ormid-1870's. 102

Chinese Gardener's Cabin said to be in the vicinity of the bald spot on the hill. Hayes' old cabin is in the background with visible traces of the Chinese irrigation ditches in the foreground.

Figure 33Present-day Hayes' Station 103 that Charles Hayes bought the area from theChinese in 1902. One informant, Jim Bragg, was able to point outtraces left on the ground of the old ditch system used toirrigate the gardens. He also stated that the Chinese did not live rightat the garden site, but had buildings on the hill some distanceabove it to the south (Figure 34) Apparently, the Hays Station gardens were not theonly Chi- nese gardens in the area. Another South Fork resident, John Lawrence, recalls Chinese gardens and placer claims on asmall bench on the north side of Smith Creek on theold Smith (now Hettinger) ranch. Lavelle Thompson of Albuquerque, New Mexico lived on this ranch in the 1920's after his fatherbought it. During a December, 1979 interview, he described theChinese gardens as follows: Well, if you go up the river trail 'til you come to China Creek...about inthere above Indian Rock...Go right up, be about a quarter mile from the river trail--maybe not quite that far--and you'll see some little benched off places. They're almost invisible...you don't even notice them. One time we brought water out of China Creek to water those gardens. And one time there was some rhubarb there, in fact, we got some and transplanted it down at the ranch. And then the grapevine is incredible indeed. Hopefully there's some remnant of that. It's one of the oldest living grape vines in Idaho. Elsensohn (1979:79) states that "...theChinese had their gardens on the South Fork of the Salmonwhere they raised vegetables for the town. They also bought salmon from the localfish- ermen." Unfortunately, she does not elaborate on eitherstatement. Trull makes reference to an1883 Wood River News-Miner article about the Chinese in the vicinityof Hailey (far to the southeast of Warren and the SouthFork) leasing land for gardening, and she states that: From these gardens the Chinese wouldsell vegetables to all the mining camps and probably proved stiff competitors of the Cabins at Hayes' Station. Figure 34Trace of Old Road to Chinese 105

Chinese gardens of Payette andWeiser Valleys for the trade of theWarrens country (1946:53). This statement is difficult toaccept for two reasons. First, Trull has noticeably neglected toinclude the Warren and South Fork area in her work and,therefore, probably had no idea of either the Hays Station or theSouth Fork gardens; and second, the distances and terrain thatwould be involved in delivering fresh produce between the pointsmentioned would be prohibitive either by foot or by pack trains. A small notice quoted byElsensohn (1979:79) from the March 15, 1888 Idaho County Free Press seemsto help solidify the relationship of the Chinese to theSouth Fork: Frank Smith will be out fromWarren in a week or two to clear theMilner trail. He will start in from this side andwill have lots of company going in asthere is a large bunch of Chinamen and several white menwaiting to accompany him. the According to Lavelle Thompson, manyof the present ditches on Smith Ranch (of which theabove-mentioned Frank Smith was the second owner) were the productsof Chinese labor. One of Trull's informants also stated that theChinese did much of the irrigating for ranchers in the Salmon,Idaho area (1946:67). The single most lasting remnantof the Chinese in the Warren and South Fork area is thestory of Polly Bemis. Polly Bemis is endless. today a South Fork legend andthe stories about her are She has become part of thelocal folklore, and each raconteur tells his or her own version. According to Elsensohn(1979) and Trull (1946), Charlie Bemis father about 1870 at the came to Warrenfrom New England with his and Charlie either age of 18. The family was a well-educated one, couldn't do or didn't care todo hard work. He did work the mines his own, for a while, however, andacquired some good claims of in to Warren most of which he eventuallysold or leased, and came (Elsensohn 1979:14). to open a dance halland gambling operation 106

On this much, most sources seemto agree. As to Polly Bemis, however,Elsensohn (1979) seems to be out who she the only person who hastaken the trouble to find She was born Lalu Nathoy on was before shebecame "Polly Bemis." September 11, 1853, close tothe Mongolian border innorthern (probably sometime China. Later, in a year of draughtand famine in ex- between 1868 and 1870), herfather sold her to "brigands" change for seed to plant thefollowing year. These "brigands," people to the New in turn, sold her to aslave outfit which sent "She was 18 when she arrived on World. According to Elsensohn, Warren" (1979;16). the West Coast and probably19 when she came to Accounts by "old-timers" andvarious journal articles vary her greatly as to how Polly(a name the miners in Warren gave when she arrived) becameMrs. C.A. Bemis. The variations general- to "Old Bemis ly run from "Old Bemis wonher in a poker game..." from a gun- married her out of gratitudewhen she saved his life be the most thorough, shot wound..." Since Elsensohn appears to she will be cited here. next to It seems that a man namedHong King owned the saloon for $2500. Charlie Bemis' in Warren. This Hong King bought Polly implied. He It is not stated where hebought her, but Portland is and dance hall then brought her to Warrento be his personal slave King in a game of drawpoker, and girl. Bemis won her from Hong At this point, however, no Hong King subsequently"disappeared." she mention is made of marriage. Bemis gave her a cabin, and This relation- started operating a boardinghouse at his place. incident took ship continued for some18 years when a shooting

place. had lost As Elsensohn tells it, arough fellow named Cox The next morning, while some money toBemis in a poker game. Cox came Bemis was standing on hisporch talking with someone, the money wasn't along and threatened toshoot out Bemis' eye if The inevi- handed over by the timehe (Cox) rolled acigarette. fraction of an table happened and Cox'sshot missed an eye by a 107 inch, the ball lodging in the boney part of Bemis' skull be- hind his left ear. A doctor was called in out of Grangeville who declared Bemis "too far gone to make it." At this point, Polly stepped in, removed the bullet with a razor, cleaned the wound with whiskey and a crochet hook, and, after long weeks of special herbs and remedies, healed the man. The two were married in Warren on August 13, 1894, and subsequently moved to a small place down on the main Salmon River. Charlie died there in 1922, and Polly stayed on until 1933 when she became quite ill and was taken out to Grangeville, Idaho, where she died in November of that year (1979:17-40). The Bemis story is pertinent to the history of the Idaho Chinese in general, and the South Fork area Chinese in particular, when it is shorn of all its "romance." Many boys and men left "good" homes and educations on the East Coast to go to the gold fields. Many of them opened gambling halls and, of these, many were shot over poker gold. But in Idaho, only Charlie Bemis dared first to care for and protect, and later to marry (and stay married until death) a Chinese slave woman. In 1935, R.G. Bailey published his River of No Return. It seems that he was personally acquainted with the Bemises, and in his book he made the following statement (cited by Elsensohn 1979:26) which unwittingly seems to have summed up the feelings of past and many contemporary Idahoans as to Polly Bemis' fame. He said "She has a yellow skin but a white heart encased in a sheathing of gold"!

The Euro-American Ranchers It was undoubtedly gold that brought Euro-Americans in great numbers to the Idaho Territory. Those not actually engaged in the search for gold were shopkeepers, freight men, saloon keepers, bankers and legal and medical practitioners, to name a few alternative professions. But whatever an individual's profession, it was initially the gold that enticed them. 108

Research for this study did notindicate that the area had been used by the trappers and furtraders earlier in the century, although there is no proof one way orthe other. Local informants, when asked about thelikelihood of the South Fork having been a popular area during thisperiod concurred that "The South Fork's not a beaver river"(Jim Bragg, John Lawrence, personal communication, 1980). That being the case, it caneasily be inferred that the South Fork, like the rest of Idaho, wasfirst "settled" during the gold rush era. As mentioned in the preceedingchapter, far to the north of the Salmon Rivercountry, in the Walla Walla area, there were already somewhite people settled when Pierce arrived in 1852. It was not, however, until1860 that he made his strike within the Nez Perceterritory in the heart of the Clearwater mountains, still aconsiderable distance to the north of the Salmon River country. He obviously spent considerable time prospecting the area beforemaking his strike. In 1862, near the present"town" of Warren, Idaho, some strike. 15 miles west of the SouthFork, James Warren made his big When he originally came intothe area is not known, but his strike immediately put the WarrenDistrict and the South Fork on the map for others. Warren's strike was monumentalenough that by 1863 both the nebulous central Idaho geographyand its mineral glories were (1963:98) has repro- established facts. In his Volume V, Wheat "New Map duced a beautiful1963 map by Alonzo Leland called the This of the Mining Regions ofOregon and Washington Territory." the South Fork is probably the firstpositive and accurate map of and its environs as we knowthem today. Wheat himself credits the map as a ...cartographic milestone,representing for the first time with any degreeof accuracy the mountainous parts ofcentral Idaho, and applying to any number ofstreams, names henceforth to be regarded asestablished. 109

Oral history of the South Fork relates that a mannamed Sylvester S. Smith, usually known as "Three-Finger"Smith, established the Smith Ranch (subsequently known as theThompson and currently the Hettinger Ranch) on the SouthFork in 1853 (Lavelle Thompson and others, personal communication,1980). No one seems to have any specific reference for this date. Again, to date neither proof nor dis-proof has emerged concerningthis information. Its relevance to this study is this: 1853 is a very early date for white occupancy in Idaho in general, butespecially for this study area. If this date should at some time provefactual, the ranch could well be one of the oldestcontinually operated private ranches in Idaho. Where Smith came from is currently not known.Local informants and an April 29, 1963 Idaho Statesmanarticle state that his wife was an Indian woman. This article stated that the couple had three sons, and Carrey(1968:27) states that there were four, but neither sourcemakes any further mention of the mother. One of the best sources of information isthe old mining claim records books, now housed in the IdahoCounty Courthouse at Grangeville. Book one shows that on October 10,1866, S.S. Smith, J.W. Poe, and four others recorded a claim theyhad located two weeks earlier (Figure 35). Also in 1866, A.D. "Pony" Smead (whose place was five miles upriver from the Smithplace) and a partner took out a claim on a differentledge. Whether these were first claims by these men, ormerely the first records they had had made, is not known. According to Parker (1968:8), Smith was aveteran of the

1872-1873 Modoc War. This statement is without confirmationand, to date, none has been found. In 1871, Smith and Poe were still involved to some degree in their partnership, aswitnessed by their joint sale of a claim that year. Also, Smith very likely had a family by the 1870's, sincein 1890 his youngest son froze to death carrying mail over theElk Creek Summit (Wilson1963; 110

4s..,45%d

ark; -, ,7 . j.,-,'i,zi,' (.7,z.2 e._/,::t..-;e:;,..1,2..de..41.2-22.2.- ,/2 /7 ..:2L -J1 FA-7% swA.Ai?ip 7.(i'l::?-.,. dtza ez.a..el-24,iA.-z.

?2/::::.....7`7.47,1 ..e,-,:T-,.4.47 c.-2,1-1 Ar,IL Le244.1.2.aa .g.-eda,: -2,c1,144-e.". .0.0,14

1 e, k;4-z ec.12,-/ Z7*(0 ..2,1 /41% Cell r4de lath. s4901101... Col ced/edy 4./1:77454. et1-41 ff;32.-a;:ts-te-e>a,77-se 12, 7/2444 eAf. /C aier/i4 , Zappip24,0,74..

ee44 A e4r)-aLt. 7,rec-eY-.

Figure35Record of 1866 Qua:rtz Claim: S. S. Smith, J. W. Poe, et al 111

Carrey 1968). From the scant references available, it would seem that between the 1860's and the 1880's, lifestyles on the South Fork paralleled the availability of gold in the immediate area.Mining claims were turning or had been turned to ranches. As early as 1873, places that had begun as partnership mining claims had become known as ranches, individual designation being by the last name of the actual or alleged proprietor. Smith and Poe's claim was referred to legally as the Smith's Ranch. For purposes which will be seen later, it was fortunate that the writer of the bill of sale made the following description of the claim being purchased "...mining ground situated on the east bank of the South Fork of Salmon River opposite Smiths Ranch Idaho County I.T..." (Bill of Sale, August 27, 1873; Charles Brown to Levi May). Nine days later, Levi May bought a ranch from Solon and Margaret Hall upriver about five miles from Smith.According to the bill of sale he bought All of one Wooden Bridge [sic] across South Fork of Salmon River and Situated near Woodwards Ranch Idaho County Idaho Territory, also the Franchise belonging to the same; also all the land now occupied as a ranch near said bridge (Bill of Sale, August 27, 1873; Solon Hall and Margaret Hall to Levi May). This document is interesting on two counts: first, both Solon and Margaret Hall were involved in the legal document; and second, since the bridge was under a franchise, it must have been a toll bridge. At the time of this sale, it could be assumed that the "Woodward Ranch" was still being mined by the partnership of George Woodward, A.D. ("Pony") Smead, J.P. Rains and G. Dyer. According to Carrey (1968:38), while these men were still operating the claim, "...some Indians..." came along, and with some flour and a horse, Smead bought a ten year old girl tocook for them! Local sources cite the incident as the origin of Snead's name "Pony." Carrey goes on to say that "Smead later 112 Molly" bought the other men out andmarried the Indian woman, of these incidents (1968:38). There is no mention of when any took place. Ranch, In 1876, however, Smead didindeed buy the Woodward ranch was but not from the "othermen." The bill of sale for the involved. At from George Woodward toA.D. Smead, with no others Salmon River where he some time, Rainshad gone down toward the which he started up a ranch near themouth of the South Fork, on was killed in1879 in the course of theSheepeater Campaign of the (Bailey 1935; Carrey 1968).No mention has been found other partners. A year later, in 1877,Smith and Poe (who hadevidently the Smith retained sole ownership ofthe original claim) sold that Frank Smith Ranch to a Frank Smith.Most local people claim Others argue that they werecousins. was Three-Fingers'nephew. Made On the 1879 Sketch Map ofMiddle Idaho Showing Trails byTroops in Sheepeater Campaign(Figure 36) three ranches are Ranch, indicated on the South Fork: the Rains Ranch, the Smith Hall ranch is and the Johnson Ranch. Neither the Smead nor the the fact that the map is indicated. This may possibly be due to neither of part of the chronicle of ahistoric event, and, since not included. these ranches played apart in that event, they were claim owned The Johnson Ranch wasapparently another mining place by Hugh Johnson and apartner. Both men were killed on the 1968:67), which may have during the SheepeaterCampaign (Carrey The above-mentioned been the reason for itsinclusion on the map. the place at the mouth of map indicatesthat "Johnson's Ranch" is march in to Elk Creek where Lt. Catley'stroops camped on their the Chamberlain country. (who took part According to the diariesof a Private Hoffner

in that march) old After a march of sixmiles we camped at an ranch in a small valley, nearscattering timber, There is on the SouthFork of the Salmon River. tar !In (.7/ky's Ais/m.rth 00e-swng w/tea, . eyrs,.an.1 .b/Slson'sANKA no,ce Ira *****Prvo.veS CC17.,4Miled COnn0"1*.n A.g.A0' /or mon-welds d /iv st XI. A4Aicitar etvpao).ste Au r/ aid notes /.5e /PRA 11,71, ale Aelv :Axe.perop6; a4fer ...seAytire+in bvil Mos o /arckttv/.1be*ten Ce7,..rova and Aleaa pA., Ms eivs o//por nu/1 DCItICA At

Mg,

t _09

i-t...:::_...... -/..1.04\14411t,ts,,,:.:,_ ;------,...._ ------` -....._-. 4...... _ ,,,c..--,4 ---, , ...._

' v -tcl 2) ! -4- ite? .j.%f

L.II, v41

t- c

54 ) 1,. --, - 1I 1 ,,) r...----J------..-. ( ----..40 ). 114 a field of potatoes here(Carrey and Conley 1980:186). There is no way of knowing what Hoffner meant by "old." In those days when all of the Pacific Northwest, particularly Idaho, was "new" to the Euro-Americans, "old" may have had a connotation of no more than a few years. The place referred to is actually on Elk Creek, approximately a mile above the river, and was the Ed Anderson Ranch. Two other ranches deserve mention here as they, too, were part of this early transitional era along the South Fork.These are Savage Bar, and the Willey(now Rebillet) Ranch. According to Carrey, Savage Bar is named after the first locator, Henry C. Savage. This place was the scene of the murder which resulted in the first legal hanging in Idaho County (1968:35). The event took place in 1886 and, since no family is mentioned in the article from the June 1886 Idaho County Free Press, it can probably be assumed that the act was the result of a miners'

squabble. It is not certain just when the Willey Ranch was established; quite likely during the latter 1880's, but possibly as late as

1893. Sim Willey and his wife lived in Warren for some 15 years before moving down to the South Fork. Three children were born in Warren, and six more after they moved on to the river(Pearl Willey Hitchcock, personal communication,1979). The ranch may have been a mining claim that Willey bought from theoriginal locator, or it may have been that he simply found the place, liked it and settled it. According to his daughter, "...every- body in Warrens in the spring would go up and down theSouth Fork and sit on the beaches; and they did that for yearsand years"

(ibid.). She felt that this may have been how her fatherfirst came on the ranch. This, then, was the transitional period on the SouthFork; a period which could be said to actually have culminatedin 1879 115 settlement with the Sheepeater Campaign. The core of the white claims- along the South Fork can besaid to have been the mining the cum-ranches from Smith's toJohnson's up to the time of Sheepeater 'War," and some timeafter this, down toWilley's

(Figure 37).

The Sheepeater Campaign There are numerous accountsavailable of what has come to 1947; be called the "SheepeaterWar" (Bailey 1935; Elsensohn Carrey 1968), most of which arebiased and inaccurate,depending accounts. heavily on local word-of-mouthtraditions and soldiers' done The most objective accountencountered to date is that chronicle by Carrey and Conley in1980. In the beginning of their they state that Though gold miners had nocompunctions about traveling through Sheepeatercountry at this [1879] time, there were a numberof whites who had observed the financialbenefits realized by civilians in the pathof a military campaign against the Indians(1980:160). in The authors go on to citecorrespondence between an officer 0.0. Howard in the Clearwater District,and Brigadier General that the people the spring of 1870. This correspondence states between whites of northern Idaho arehoping for open hostilities anxious and Indians, and mentions aBoise merchant who is very had gained for hostilities since inthe 1878 Bannock War he vouchers..." "...some 25 thousanddollars worth of Government

(ibid.). of some horses Most accounts of thiscampaign cite the theft 1878 "...some hours in Indian Valley(Figure 1) in the summer of incident in the before dawn..." bySheepeaters as the opening Parker's account goes onto state hostilities (Parker1968:8). sometime after that three ranchers wentafter the perpetrators into Long Valley wherethe dawn. They followed the Indians and wounded latter, waiting in ambush,killed the three ranchers This Three-Finger Smith whohad ridden out withthe ranchers. 116

1. Mackay 1878 2. Rains 1865- 1870 3. Smith 1853- 1865 4. Deering 1870s- 1880 5. Smead 1860- 1865 6. Hall 1860s 7. Brewer 1870s 8. Smith 1879- 1881 9. Johnson 1870s 10. Savage 1870s 11. Fritzer 1880s 12. Willey 1880s 13. Knox 1870s

After U.S.G.S. State of Idaho

j. 1:500,000 1" = approximately 8 miles

Figure 37Early transitional ranches: 1860s to 1880s 117 version of Parker's might be calledthe "standard" version of the affair, and from it three questions arise. First, how did the ranchers know in the middle of the nightthat the raiders were Sheepeaters?Second, why did the Indians, especiallyif they were Sheepeaters, bother tosit around waiting in an ambush when they could easily have been losing themselvesback in their mountains? And last, how did Smith happen to be on thescene? In February of 1879, five Chinese miners werekilled at their camp on Loon Creek near Oro Grande east ofthe Middle Fork of the Salmon River. Again, the deaths were blamed on "the Sheepeaters." Carrey and Conley state, however, that It should be noted here that there was never any satisfactory evidence that the murders were the work of Indians, let alone Sheepeaters. There were white miners in the area,and killing Chinese was not unthinkable...(1980:161). Following notice of this incident, Captain ReubenBernard at Boise was ordered to proceed with troops to Challis asclose to June first as possible. Before these orders could be carried out, Hugh Johnson and his partner Peter Dorsey werekilled at their ranch on the South Fork. These killings likewise were blamed on the Sheepeaters. Subsequently, troops numbering about 60 men underCaptain Bernard set out from Boise. Troops numbering about 50 men under First Lieutenant Catley set out from CampHoward at Grangeville. And, Lieutenant Farrow with sevenenlisted men and 20 Umatilla "scouts" left Umatilla Agency, Oregon. All were headed for the South Fork country (Carrey and Conley1980:161,162). In their "Postscripts" to theiraccount of the Sheepeater Campaign (1980:199), Carrey and Conleystate that the Sheepeaters

were Subjected to personal interrogation byGeneral Howard at the Vancouver Barracks inNovember, 1879. During the questioning they willingly admitted the attack on the Rains' ranch,but vehemently denied any connection withthe murders 118 of the five Chinese miners or the deaths of Johnson and Dorsey. The above-mentioned troops left their posts in June, of

1879. In August, J.P. Rains was killed at his ranch on the lower South Fork while putting up hay--purportedly by Sheepeaters. Thompson, however (personal communication 1979), says the incident occurred because Rains had hired the Indians to help with the hay- ing and then had run them off without paying them for the work. The troops were still moving around in the back country, and so were the Indians. There had been two small skirmishes with the Indians the undisputed victors in both instances. According to Carrey and Conley: At this point Bernard realized that his supplies were exhausted, his stock worn out and famished, so he requested permission from Gen. Howard to return to Boise and refit in order to continue the battle. Bernard had covered 1,168 miles, fought snow for 37 days, and lost 63 head of stock (Garrey and Conley 1980:193). It was late September before any contact was made with the Indians, and then it was a Bannock/Nez Perce man named Tamanmo who approached the soldiers offering to bring the people in for

surrender. The day before he came in, the soldiers had "captured" a woman and her baby, and holding the baby hostage,had sent her out to send the people in. The total number of people surren- dered was 51, "...of whom fifteen may be classed as warriors"

(ibid.)! The discrepencies speak for themselves. As was discussed earlier, the Sheepeater culture was predicated upon pacifism, and this pacifism was put into effect by simple isolation. It, therefore, seems exceedingly unlikely, especially taking into account the reduced population, that they would, of their own volition, have taken such extreme overt measures and, thus initiated a con-

frontation. A young Sheepeater man says that in fact, they did

not. According to Mr. Vic Mann, whose mother is a Sheepeater, the 119 campaign was, indeed, one of defense rather than offense. Five Indian men had been trapping all winter in the Little Salmon River country west of the South Fork, and were bringing their furs out to trade when they met four white men in a camp who wanted to buy the furs. The Indians didn't want to sell, so went on and were then attacked by the whites. The resulting skirmish left three Indians and three white men dead, and one white man (probably Smith) badly wounded. The two Indians left, went to report the news to the other tribal members, and then headed for the South Fork. There they found that a posse was hunting them. Parker (1968:16) says that after Rains was killed, Sim Willey's brother Norman took a volunteer posse of 18 men, all well-armed, out to track the Indians. The Indians didn't want to fight so they headed towards the East Fork of the South Fork, and from there back to the Big Creek country, where, eventually, they were captured (Vic Mann, personal communication, 1980). Whether the trouble started with rebel Nez Perce and Ban- nooks who then joined with the Sheepeater people, as most author- ities believe (Bailey 1935; Parker 1968; Carrey and Conley 1980), or with whites, or from a combination of the two, the results were all the same--the Sheepeater people were forced out of a homeland that may have been theirs for millennia and their culture was totally destroyed.

The Last Century The East Fork of the South Fork (herein designated simply as the East Fork) plays a minor, if significant role in this study. Seen on the map (Figure 36), it enters the South Fork at about mid way in the course of the river. Living on the South Fork gives the strange notion that above the East Fork there is another river, not just the upper end of the same river. In a socio- psychological sense, this is true. By the 1890's, the lower South Fork--i.e., the river below the East Fork of the South Fork, and including all those ranches 120 from Willey's to Rains'--was quitedeveloped. By 1891, the fore-runners of theroads which serve the lower South Fork today had appeared onat least one Map, C.H. Amerine's "Sectional Map of Idaho andWestern Montana" (Preston the hands of Ben and 1978:34,35). In 1894, the Hall Ranch was in Minnie Day, and Minnie established apost office there to serve the South Fork community from Marchof 1894 to October of1896. While the postal service remained, andthe name to which it was addressed continued to be "Hall," thebase of operations was shifted in the fall of 1896 from the DayRanch upriver to the Willey Ranch, and Sim Willey became postmaster. This arrangement appears to have lasted forless than a month, when the postoffice was once more broughtdown-river. This time Amasa D. "Pony" Smead took it over and remained postmasteruntil Hall was discontinued in 1899 (Hall postal records,Idaho State Historical Society, Boise, Idaho). In 1897, Hall appears on the CenturyAtlas' map of Idaho and Wyoming and in 1900, on a mapof Idaho by George

Cram of Chicago. According to the Cockrell Report on thePost Office Depart- ment for 1888 and the 1902 PostalLaws and Regulations, it was not very difficult for a personto establish a post office. One had merely to show cause for the servicein the desired area and, from a poll of those to beserved, choose a one-word name that the people agreed on. No mention was made of minimumpopulation requirements. The First Assistant PostmasterGeneral would then pass on the requestsand the post office would beestablished. None of these requirements would pose aproblem in the remote South Fork country. Twice more postal service wasestablished on the river. In 1904, postal service was resumed and inthe same general area as

the original Hall station. This time the postmaster throughout of Elk Creek, was Ernest W. Heath. The location was at the mouth settled on the ranch thatThree-Finger Smith had originally 121 following the Sheepeater Campaign. Although, according to the existing Comfort postal records at theIdaho State Historical Society, this post office ceased to exist in1906, Comfort appears consistently on maps aslate as 1912. The last post office on the SouthFork was the Brewer Post Office which operated from April 9,1914, until February 15, 1916. Annie Brewer was the only postmistress(Gary L Bradshaw, Boise Main Post Office, personal communication,1980). The Brewer ranch was approximately a half miledown river from the mouth of Elk Creek, and on the west bank of the river. Of the three postal stations, Comfortmight be inferred to have been the most significant. As was mentioned earlier, above the East Fork of the South Fork there appearsto have been little involvement by Euro-Americans during the yearswhen the upper river was becoming established as a whiteranching community and Warren was in its heyday. Then, in the late 1890's, a new group of miners began settling in the regionof the upper South Fork. In the latter 1890's, twin brothersBen and Lou Caswell settled on Cabin Creek. They were from Michigan, via theColorado gold fields, and had come to Idaho totry and make a strike. In 1895-1896 they did just that on Thunder Mountain,just north of Warm Lake and east of the South Fork. By 1899, prospectors were trickling in and large investors had begunmining operations on the mountain, but it wasn't until1902 that the "boom" began. Thunder Mountain became a natinallyacclaimed phenomenon, and was said to be a mountain of gold(Wells, n.d.). According to Simpson("Chronology," n.d.), by 1898 the "Village of Yellow Pine" had beenestablished and there were prospectors working in the area. In 1900, due to the influx of miners bound for Thunder Mountain,the town of Roosevelt was es- "...7,000 people tablished. Between 1901 and 1903 there were getting mail at post office,14 saloons, two or three hotels, seven or eight storesand numerous eating places." By 1905 it had dwindled to 1500 people(ibid.). 122 Fisher (1938:387) states that the hamlet of Knox on the South Fork near Six Bit Creek "...was established by a man named Knox, who had a way station on the old Boise-Thunder Mountain trail." Simpson (n.d.) says that this "road" was built in 1902- 1903 because of the Thunder Mountain Rush. "This was a low standard wagon road, actually a trail wide enough for a wagon...After the mining boom was over, the road closed itself because of the steep grade and lack of drainage (ibid.). Wells' very thorough account of the great Thunder Mountain rush (n.d.) indicates that although there were alternative routes provided, the older route through Warren and up the South Fork was more widely used. This then, may be the reason for the con- tinuance of Comfort on the maps. The place was aptly named, especially for a way station. From Warren to Comfort is a distance of some 20 - 25 miles and involves crossing the nearly 7,000 foot Warren Summit which, even in a mild winter, is covered with ten feet of snow. Descending to the river, the elevation drops 5,000 feet in some ten miles. If such a journey wasn't bad enough, from Comfort on, the trail ascends some 7,000 feet to the 9,000-foot Elk Creek Summit.Wells (n.d.) quotes an uncited source's description of this summit as: The wind blows the snow up the long slope from this [Warren] side, whipping it over an almost perpendicular descent on the other side, thus forming a comb of snow 50 to 100 feet deep. This is continuously breaking off and making dangerous snowslides down into the valley, besides necessitating a long detour (p. 26). In November of 1901, miners arriving at Warren en route to Thunder Mountain found themselves suddenly "snowed in" until the spring. Wells says that, "Unable to get to Thunder Mountain, impatient miners began to pile up in Warrens, ready to dash on in as soon as an opportunity should offer"(n.d.:21). Established as Warren was by this time, it appears that both the town and the South Fork people reaped the harvestof two gold

rushes. Prices were inflated and commodities were scarce.If the 123 South Fork bridge was, indeed, a toll bridge as the bill of sale implies, the profits would have been sumptuous. The upper South Fork, however, did not see the gradual stabilization that occurred below the East Fork. In 1896, John Reeves settled on Reeves Bar (now known as the Reed Ranch) to work a placer mine, which he "later" abandoned (Ortman 1975:2). In 1903, the town of Yellow Pine was established as a result of the Thunder Mountain rush. Of the four towns established out of that rush, Roosevelt, Thunder Mountain City, Marble, and Yellow Pine, only Yellow Pine remains today. That same year, homesteads sprang up in the Yellow Pine vicinity on Johnson, Hennesy, Riordan, Trapper, and Hanson Creeks, and the East Fork. Chapman (n.d.:4) says that the Thunder Moun- tain area became home for "...renegade white men..." and that in ten years' time five known murders committed in the area "...with probably many more unreported..." (ibid.). The above-mentioned Reeves Bar saw two more settlers before the end of the Thunder Mountain rush. In 1906, Paul Forrester set up a cabin on the bar and ran a trap line along the South Fork during the winter; he abandoned both within a year. In 1905, a William Caldwell had set up a fair sized ranching operation on the bar at Camp Creek. He had a cabin, barn, fences, hay and oats, and people were call- ing the creek Caldwell Creek. In 1908, three years after taking out his claim, he was murdered while cooking breakfast (Ortman 1975:2). Sources agree that by 1907, the great Thunder Mountain rush was over (Wells, n.d.; Simpson, n.d.). In 1909, an immense land- slide that dammed Monumental Creek destroyed the twon of Roose- velt, which, as a result of the catastrophe, is now the floor of Roosevelt Lake (Wells n.d.:42). Throughout all the traffic and excitement up the South Fork via Warren in these years, the lower river remained essentially

stable. One change of probable significance was made in 1902, the first big year of the Thunder Mountain rush. This change was 12 the changing of ownership of a placementioned earlier as having been a Chinese garden site dating from the1870's. Carrey traces its possession thus: Charley Hays [sic] got the place, to beknown as "Hays Station" from theChinamen. They were raising vegetables for the miners at Warren. Hays had the place well improved at the timethe Forest Service took it over for an administrative site. Hays failed to make homestead entry, and when he left it, it went to the ForestService (1968:34). This is somewhat erroneous; Hayes didn'tjust "leave" so that the land automatically reverted to the ForestService. According to a Forest Service "report onAgricultural Settlement" dated March 16, 1906, Charles B. Hayes had a "squatter location"of 160 acres on which he had livedcontinuously since November 25, 1902. From later records it will be seen thatapparently the Forest Service had begun looking for an "administrativesite" closer to the South Fork than Warren and, to thatend, was appraising any likely-looking properties with buildings andpasture. However, the Ranger at the time, David Laing,recommended "...that claimant be allowed to continue in possession andpatent claim at proper time." Some time between 1906 and 1908, one WarrenE. Cook, a For- est Guard, appeared on the scene, and in aJuly 4, 1908 "Report on Proposed AdministrativeSite," Cook states that "This tract is of great value to the Forest Service asthere is no other suitable place for Ranger Station close,Horse [sic] feed and vegetables can be raised much reducing expensesin this section." The "improvements" were purchased, andHayes "relinquished all claim" to the property on that date. This is an interesting case, sincethe Forest Service maintained the property for only a shortperiod of time as an "admin-

istrative site." One informant states that he knewW.E. Cook, and that Cook had quite a reputationin the area. Apparently, he traveled around attempting toconvince the local ranchers 125 and settlers to turn over their landsto the Forest Service, bringing to bear whatever pressure hefelt would bring results in his favor (Bragg, personalcommunication, 1980). It seems that Hayes succumbed to this pressure. Several as yet un-answered questions arisefrom this incident. First, was it merely coincidentalthat Hayes arrived in the area in 1902, or was it connectedwith the Thunder Mountain rush?Second, if the Chinese did sell theirgarden to Hayes, were they also on their wayto Thunder Mountain? Or, had the ranchers' gardens supplanted the salespotential for the Chinese in Warren? Following the Thunder Mountain rush,the socio-cultural nature of the South Fork seems to havebegun sealing itself toward what it remains today. Following the Homestead of1906, people began filing their claims, having theirlands surveyed, and "proving up" on the land in order to getthe legal title of ownership. In some of the older cases alongthe river, this action was undoubtedly prompted by twomain factors. First, most of the original settlers, and those who camein after the 1890's, had, by the turn of the centuryand later, acquired families. In the event of their death, theywanted to know that these families would hold legal title to the property. Secondly, since the ad- vent of the Forest Service, menwanted to be certain that the land they had worked for would go totheir children if the children wanted it. If there had been no title, no matterhow long the individual had been on the land,when he and his wife both died, the land would have reverted tothe Forest Service(Bragg, Law- rence, personalcommunication, 1980). For this reason, it is generally not possible to get a dateof original settlement from

a Homestead Entryrecord. By this period in time from theend of the Thunder Mountain the rush and on into the seconddecade of the twentieth century, South Fork, especially the lowerriver, had pretty well evolved in" into a definite communitypattern. A few new people had "come 126

(see glossary) and some ranches had changed hands, butthis was minimal (Figure 38). Since the nature of the settled places on the upper river had been more transitory fromthe outset, much of this land was in the hands of, orhad reverted to the Forest

Service. From the second decade to the mid-1920'sthere was either an influx of people settling on the river, arush of activity by those settled there to have their claimssurveyed, or some of

both. During that time, some 11 homestead entries werelisted and surveyed. As was mentioned above, the dates can be highly deceptive. For example, while Frank Smith purchased hisranch in 1877, it was not until 1910 that he had it surveyedprior to acquiring a formal deed. Since its inception, the Forest Servicehad been very active along the river.By 1919, it had acquired over 1,000,000 acres of the "Thunder Mountain Area." In 1924, a phone line was built from Knox to Yellow Pine and in1924, "The auto road from Cascade to Yellow Pine, with a spur from Landmarkto Deadwood was completed..." (Chapman, n.d.:5). All this, of course, was done along the upper river, and was largely doneby the Forest Service for the Forest Service. Down river improvements also were beingmade. About the time of the First World War, the trailfrom Warren Summit to the river was improved to wagon road status(Thompson, personal communication 1979). Later, Otis Morris of Warren(whose father's name appears on most ofthe legal documents during the original gold rush era in Warren) got a contractto put in a phone line. He strung the line from Warren upSlaughter Gulch and over to the Badley (Rains) Ranch. Norris did most of the work alone,taking fixed insulators and standing on hishorse to afix them to the trees (Powers, personal communication,1979). Eventually, there was a line clear up tothe Willey ranch, although Morrisdidn't

string it. One particular section of the river seemsto have had quite 127

1. Otterson 2. Mackay 3. Hall 4. Nelson 5. Carlson 6. Borden 7. Thompson 8. McDowell 9. Deering 10. Matzke 11. Dustin 12. Garrey 13. Brewer 14. Flynn 15. Taylor 16. Anderson 17. Hackett 18. Scales 19. Rushton 20. Scott 21. Stanley 22. Fritter 23. Rebillet 24. Krassel 25. Reed

After U.S.C.S. State of Idaho 1:500,000 1" = approximately 8 miles

Figure 38 Established ranches: 1890s - 1920s 128 a bit of settlement on it; this isthe area between Pony Creek and Savage Creek. Here, in particular between 1915 and 1925,there appears to have been considerablere-settlement and new settlement. As one informant stated, "...Just differentpeople lived on them places; there was so manydifferent ones..." (Pearl Willey Hitchcock, personal communication,1979). One place in this region was different thanthe others in that it wan't just settled randomly. This was the Power Plant that was built by civil and electrical engineers onthe South Fork to run power up to Warren to run the dredges(Thompson, personal communication, 1979). Carrey (1968:28) says this plant was built on the old Taylor place(Figure 38:#15). According to records in the state BLM offices in Boise, Idaho,permission was given to the Unity Gold Mine Corporation inWarren from the Fed- eral Power Commission in 1923 to build and operate a powerstation on the South Fork, and lands wereset aside for the lines. The power plant itself was on theproperty homesteaded by Three-Finger Smith after the Sheepeater Campaign. A local family was hired to operate the plant. Carrey (1968:28) says that "When the mines shut down, that was the end of the[Taylor] ranch." During the years of the Great Depression, Warren was"secure," with two out of three dredges in operation(Thompson, personal communication, 1979). The South Fork residents, themselves, were not affected by the depression but bythose who had suffered from its affects. One informant stated that the area nearthe South Fork bridge looked like a tent city duringthis time. People came in and just camped because there wasnowhere else where a person or a man and his familycould hope to get by on the barest minimum possible. Louis Rebillet says that when George Fritzer (born on the Fritzer ranch ca. 1903 and still theretoday) was asked how the Depression had affected him,he replied "What depression?" (personal communication). By the 1940's, all of the originalranches except the Frit- zer Ranch had changedhands, some more than once. Unlike other 129 real estate exchanges, these changes were not handled by agents, and often the parties were known to each other, or had connec- tions by marriage, or some kind of "back country" tie previous to the sale. In 1935, Bob Johnson began a regular mail route to Big Creek and Warren in conjunction with his flying service based at Cascade, Idaho. This service was taken over by Bob Fogg and Warren Ellison in 1946. Their service was out of McCall, Idaho, and they carried the mail in to Warren and Big Creek once a week (weather permitting) (Central Idaho Star News, November 8, 1978). Mail carrier contracts for ground travel between McCall and War- ren, and Warren and the South Fork(two separate contracts) were in effect only those months of the year when the roads were passable. This arrangement is still in effect today. In 1970, the suMmer mail route between Warren and the South Fork, making a total of 80 miles, was run twice a week and servedfive patrons (personal knowledge as past mail carrier). After a succession of owners, the original Smith Ranch was bought by Wallace McDowell, who had extensive business dealings in Warren. While he owned it, he built what is now the road from Hayes Station down to the ranch. A few years later, in 1951 and '52, the Forest Service built a timber access road from the Warren Summit down to Hayes Station (Thompson, Powers, personal communication, 1979). Today, the South Fork inhabitants, for the large part, choose to maintain their isolated integrity. Of the 12 original early ranches along the South Fork, five are still in operation: the Mackay Ranch, the (original) Smith Ranch, the Smead Ranch, the Fritzer Ranch, and the Willey Ranch. These five places are now called Mackay Bar, the HettingerRanch, the Barkell Ranch, the Fritzer Ranch, and the Rebillet Ranch. Of these five remaining ranches, Mackay Bar cannot be actually designated as a ranch, and until the early1970's, it had little or no actual impact on the South Fork proper. Mackay 130

Bar is now owned by a Boise man, R.V. Hansberger and his corporation. In 1969, Hansberger also purchased the original Smith (known at the time as the Hettinger) Ranch. Mackay Bar operates solely and exclusively as a vacation spot for uppermiddle and upper class pleasure-seekers. Depending on the season, guided deer, elk, bear, and cougar hunts are offered as well as salmon fishing, jet boat tours, and trail rides. Until recently, the Smith Ranch was maintained strictly as a ranching operation which supportedMackay Bar considerably. Stock was wintered and hay was raised and put up there. It was operated by back-country ranchers hired to operate it, andfew if any Mackay Bar guests were even awareof its existence 15 miles to the south. While it is still operated by competent ranching people, it has, within the last decade, become a small satellite operation of the Mackay Bar genre. According to informants, during the winter of 1979-1980, Mackay Bar's paying guests took15 bears out of the area adjacent to the Hettinger Ranch! This is an exceedingly high number. Aside from the remaining ranches, there are a few"old-timers" who have spent from 40 to 60 years on smallestablished self- contained places on the river. Their ambitions and intentions, like those of the larger ranchers are basically tomaintain the status quo. "River people" are upset at the turn of events. It is their feeling that such constantand unbridled intrusion by a comparatively steady flow of outsiders can only upsetthe delicate balance that exists between this riverand its inhabitants (personal communications, 1980). Consistent with the Sheepeater position a centurybefore, there are indications that these peoplewill go to whatever lengths to defend their isolation. The following conversation took place in 1979 during an interview with E.L.Thompson, whose father owned and with his two sons anddaughter, operated the Smith Ranch from 1928 to 1944: 131

Interviewer: ...there's the complete introversion of that river...thatpeople there, their only importance is theimportance they gather to themselves as personsattached to the river.

true Thompson: That's an absolute statement; a statement. Most informants agreed(Edmunson, Thompson, Rebillet, his or personal communications) thatasking an individual about gross her background prior toliving on the river constitutes a total and voluntary sub- impropriety. It would seem that this binding mission to the locale and itsenvironment, then, is the device that has created thecohesiveness of the inhabitants. Whatever their single individualdifferences may be, to outsiders they present a united front. There appears to be a total compre- hension of motive. cohesion is an As Tentchoff(1979) points out, this type of important aspect of othersub-cultures. While race or language South Fork usually play an importantrole, in the case of the and socio- peoples, the total adherenceto a chosen environmental population psychological refugium hasseemingly rendered a random into a small, but viablecultural entity. 132

CHAPTER VISUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Throughout the long history ofhuman occupation of the South Fork country, there canbe seen a certain pulsating country has been alternately phenomenon. That is to say that the the diastolic open and closed--isolatedand intruded upon--like and systolic motions of theheart. These pulsations have been outside the the effects of certain humanevents and activities South Fork which, in one way oranother, have made themselves felt along the river. and Until the pre-historicevidence can be searched out them- examined, we can only speculate asto what forces pressed My own theory selves into the region duringpre-historic times. Shoshoni) people have a is that the Shoshoni(or a branch of the this mountain- much longer history thanis currently realized in west came into the ous area, and thatpeople from the north and region to hunt, to travelto the south, or both. Laissez- The Sheepeater people werestrong advocates of a they were faire policy towardsothers. In today's terminology, it is a known fact that pacifists. During the historical times, not only the Nez Perce did use theSalmon River drainage country well. for hunting and fishing,but also for access routes as bitter Although the Nez Perce andShoshoni were traditional and Shoshoni, I have enemies and although theSheepeater people were skirmishes or wars yet to come acrossmention of any inter-tribal River, the Nez Perce in the country. South of the main Salmon seasonal population. appear to have beenstrictly a transient and certain Nevertheless, their periodicvisits must have instilled a population. air of guarded protectivenessamong the Sheepeater thrust it- In the early 1860's, a newand explosive element its people. self into the comfortableisolation of the area and and Chinese into the A rush for gold. Gold brought white men country by the hundreds. 133

For the native peoples, the softfamiliar rhythm of the seasons was about to snapto a final close. This new "diastolic wave" was perhapsthe harshest because the opening was not anticipatedand, therefore, softened, but was sudden and jarring. These were not family bands passingthrough on their way to thebuffalo hunts in the east or to thePayette Lakes intertribal trade rendezvous. These were men not only of a different race, but also of a differentand generally incomprehen- sible temperament. Later, when the Chinese came in,these white men in their fear andgreed, often pitted "Savage" and"Celestial" against one another as scapegoats. It was during this wave that the area, because of the mining boom,became totally open to white settlement on the one hand, and on theother, crashed to an igno- ble and final close for the nativepeople. The active beginning of the ForestService along the South Fork in the early years of the turnof the century had both positive and negative affects on theinhabitants. Trail maintenance and the bringing in of the phonelines up and down the river was a Ser- boon to the inhabitants. However, the Forest's (as the Forest vice is known locally) hunger forproperty (such as Charlie Hayes' place), the monitoring of stock activities, andthe strict eye on hunting and fishing nettled theinhabitants. By the turn of the century, the areahad once again "closed

up." By then, approximately all theranches that still would be operating in the 1950's had beenestablished, and the South Fork country had once again settleditself into its cozy isolation. Then, during the Great Depression,this isolation again was broken and another "diastolicwave" swept the people and the area. Once again, the South Fork wassought out as a haven by many people seeking to simply survivethe financial catastrophy. Infor- mants who had lived on the riverduring this era told me that whole families came in to thecountry, camping in their carsand trucks, and living day to dayfrom fishing, hunting, andwhatever trapping and mining they mightdo. In time, these "refugees" 134 left, and the river closed in onitself as it had before. During the late 1960's, another groupof "refugees" came into the country, but not in suchforce or numbers that they could actually be said to havere-opened the country. These were the "hippies"--the "flower children."I was living in the country at the time and I remember themclearly. They usually came in couples and were very dirty and verylazy. It was their inten- tion to "live off the land" and theygenerally shrugged off our advice that this could no longer bedone. They often came down in the fall, and by late fall andearly winter, when it became clear to them that we had been right,they settled to live off the people on the land. Sooner or later, they would find a wayto go back out as the solitude and ranchwork was not to their liking. They made little or no impression onthe inhabitants. I mentioned them here merely because they were aspecific and identifiable group of people who, again,chose the South Fork country as a refuge. Today, as we approach the turn ofanother century, the South Fork faces yet another "wave," butthis time, again there is pres- threatened by sure. Once before a backcountry population was severe pressure and lostthe battle unequivocably. That was just to bear over 100 years ago, andit was the racial pressure brought by the white newcomers on the Indianpeoples. In 1879, the Indian peoples were forcibly removed fromthe area. Today's pressure is not racial;in fact, no group is pressing to supplant the South Forkpeople as settlers or residentsof the the government area. This time, the pressure istwo-pronged: (as represented by the ForestService) wants to own and thus con- the trol all of the backcountrylands, especially the lands in Salmon River drainage; and afew well-to-do men also want to own high-priced recrea- or hold use rightsto the land to exploit the this pincer action tion demand. There can be little doubt that and assault on the few remainingsmall private landowners can eventually will rout the riverpeople. 135 Conclusions Because of the great lack of archaeological work in the South Fork locale, it is not currently possible to make any statements about the status of pre-historic peoples in the area. The most that can be said is simply that they were there. The "Who ?" and the "Why ?" will have to be left to speculation as the area is explored archaeologically. Archaeological findings of the last two decades indicate that people have been inhabiting the Stanley Basin country for at least 9,800 years, and the Camas Prairie country at the southern base of Idaho's vast central network of mountain ranges for some 12,000 years (Pavesic 1978:8). These facts alone give a great deal of support to Swanson's belief that: It [is] of at least equal value to assume that the Northern Shoshoni had been in the region for a long time, perhaps millenia, and that the spread of Numian peoples had been from the Northern Rocky Mountains southward and westward also millenia ago (1972:5). It would seem reasonable to conclude that people have inhabited the South Fork (and general Salmon Riverdrainage) country far beyond historic times, and that these pre-historic peoples could have been the prototypes for what is now termed the "Basin- Plateau" type of culture, but which, as suggested earlier, might now be referred to as the Montane Culture. The two most striking reasons for this rationale, aselicited by this research, would seem to be the apparently unchanging continuity of living cycle and cultural style as is seen inthe archaeological record of the mountain-dwelling people and the heretofore unrecognised fact that the high mountains wereindeed populated over a long and continous period of time. The facts as presented in this paper plus a revised version of Hogg's 1981 map of northwest cultural delineationswould seem to be good support for a recommendation that the terms"Basin" or "Plateau" or "Basin-Plateau" be replaced for this areaby the 136 more realistic term "Montane"in regard to cultural affiliation and type.

Protohistoric and Historic Indian Groups Whichever pre-historic ancestral groups mayhave inhabited the South Fork country, it isclear that in the historic period it was jointly used by theNez Perce and the Sheepeater Shoshoni. The 1804 Lewis and Clark maps, drawn forthe expedition by the Chopunnish (Nez Perce) clearly indicatethe main Salmon River as a geographical boundarybetween them with the Nez Perce delineated to the north and the Shoshoni tothe south of it. Evidence appears to indicate thatwhile the Nez Perce certainly utilized the Salmon River drainage area, it wasthe Sheepeater Shoshoni who called it home. The South Fork country and all therugged country from French Creek on the west tothe Lemhi country on the east, and from the main Salmon River onthe north to the Stanley Basin on the south was the home of theSheepeater bands. It apparently was busily traveled and usedby other groups as well, predominantly the Nez Perce. Although the two peoples have a long history of mutual animosity, inthe case of the above-mentioned area, a belt of neutrality seemsto have been established which might be likened to the politicalstatus of Switzerland in contemporary times.

Chinese and Euro-Americans Even though Anglo and Chinese occupationof the South Fork locale can be documented nearly 125 yearsinto the past, those places established in the 1860's andstill operating today have had very little change of ownership,and almost no change of "purpose."Even so, those ownership changes thathave occured not only can be fairly easily tracedlegally, but also the continual and chronological solidarity ofthe owners can be clearly seen. This solidarity is often nearly asbinding as geneological ties

in other cultures. It should be noted that this ismuch more the case on the 137 lower half of the river than the upper. The upper river seems generally to have followed the patternof the Middle Fork country the and the main Salmon River. This pattern can be traced back to early mining era. Miners came into most of the SalmonRiver drainage country in the 1860's, andquite a few stayed and established ranches and residences. But in the main Salmon and Middle Fork, and to some extent the upperSouth Fork, these inhabitants sold out fairly early in the twentiethcentury either to the government (ForestService) or to private recreational concerns. In either case, the solitaryself-substaining lifestyle was sold with the land. The lower half of the South Forkpresents a different image. While nearly all of the land once ranchedand mined on the upper river is now owned by the ForestService, the lower river is still of certain goods (in- ranched. In pre-white times, acquisition cluding horses) and prowess as a hunterand, later, even more im- portantly as a warrior, were paramountto social success. Today, acquisition of a fine vehicle andlarge bank account, prowess with the opposite sex, and skills inthe world of business and finances are paramount to social success. As with the Sheepeater people inthe past, the contemporary South Fork people eschew themotivations of these pursuits. Their interests are not in keeping upwith the Jones or in keeping abreast of ahead of the enemy. Their interests are in keeping their environment and remainingsound within its scope. 138

CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS FOR CULTURAL ISOLATION

All nations are geographical and political divisions of populations within which one group of people will emerge as dominant. I will not use the term "majority" in referring to dominant populations since, in many cases, this term is not only misleading but erroneous. Such is certainly the case in the United States, which is the setting for this thesis. There are numerous sub-cultures within the United States including: Chicano, Indian, Cajun, Black, Deaf, Amish, and Jewish, to name the more prominent. Smaller groups which may be either "divisions" of larger sub-cultures or much smaller sub-cultures are: Navajos, Gypsies, Cubans/Puerto Ricans, Russians(Oregon's Woodburn area), Italians, cowboys, and backcountry people. Of these, the Indian, Chicano, Cajun, Black, Deaf, and hillbillies have maintained their own cultures in the midst of the dominant society for in excess of 100 years, some much longer. In most instances of cultural isolation, the group is sepa- rated linguistically from the dominant society. Other factors may include racial differences, religion,food, type of housing, kinship interactions, dress, and lifestyle. Any or all of these things may differentiate one group from another. While the "rationale" for cultural isolation may be sharp and clear to a member of any sub-cultural group, to a personwho lives in and descends from the dominant segment of societythis rationale may, at best, seem nebulous and in generalincomprehen-

sible. Perhaps it would be best to begin defining cultural isolation by what it is not. Cultural isolation is not a negative reaction to pressure. Though often construed by outsiders as negative, isolationto whatever degree and other responses to pressures to"assimilate" are seen by the members of thepressured groups as positive means of remaining a cohesivesocio-cultural unit. While it is 139 usually a reaction to pressure from adominant group, it is not a group political stanceassumed out of spite. And it is not a collective battle of wills between "thegood guys" and "the bad guys." Cultural "isolation" is not aninvented system which structures itself so that any one group can pressfor a " you were right--they werewrong" judgment from a hazily defined tribunal. Rather, cultural isolation is an innateexpression by a given group of people of Pride. This pride is a living thing, passed from generation to generation,and at its very core it can be said to be positive. When and if it takes on, or appears to exhibit, negative aspects(such as those mentioned on the previous page), it is the result of anundue, unwarranted, and unending outside pressure. While the majority of the sub-culturesin the United States today are isolated or set apart bylinguistic differences, a few by adherence to a are not. Some few can be said to be set apart particular life style which differsconsiderably from that of the dominant society. Among these are the traditionalcowboys of the intermontane west(Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon and Wash- ington, Nevada, and Wyoming inparticular; the traditional hillbillies of the Ozarks and Appalachians;"open" or politically active gay communities; communes;Mennonites; and, of course, the backcountry people, ofwhom the South Fork residents,past and present, can be consideredarchtypes. It is very unlikely that a true"melting-pot" could ever occur in one nationalpopulation; that is, that a totally assimilated nation of individualswith culturally diverse backgrounds could prevail. This country has made an unprecedented and unsuccessful attempt tothat end for over 300 years and issue. continues generation aftergeneration to struggle with the A glance through popular periodicalssuch as The National Geographic, Smithsonian, and Geo, to name afew, will easily to be show a) that the generalpopulation appears to continue 140

fascinated by "mountain peoples" the world over; andb) that mountain peoples the world over appear to manifest atimeless tenacity for their traditional lifestyles andoften rugged environments. Perhaps it is this very tenacity and solidarity in a world of constant and often overwhelming changewhich so fascinates the general populations who are so caught upin these changes. In spite of this apparent fascination, mountainpeoples tend to suffer a derogatory status from non-mountainpopulations. Consider the over-all attitude towards the peoples ofthe Ozarks and the Appalachians in this country. Leading a simplistic and fundamental kind of life in often remote or sheltered areas, these peoples are generally regarded by outsiders as"backwards" and "ignorant."They differ characteristically from the"sophisticated" lowland, urban populations of their ownlocale and of the nation in dress, in goals, in architecture,in religion (they are almost invariably very basic Protestant "fundamental- ists"), in their closely intertwined family ties, and in their speech. As a teenager in the late 1950s, I had occasionto be traveling from Oregon to southern Louisiana on thetrain. As we crossed Lake Ponchartrain coming in to NewOrleans where my family was to meet me, I was combingmyself and getting ready for the arrival when a tall woman began to talk to me. Since I was traveling on a train, I was listening inEnglish, but the only thing I could pick up from what she said wasthat she seemed to be asking me something. Thinking I had made a mistake and she was Cajun, I started totalk to her in that language, but she didn't seem to understand me. Gradually I discovered that she was talking to me inEnglish and that she was from somewhere in for me. the Ozarks. It was a curious and unforgettable experience I was accustomed to and familiar with avast array of speech differences from various parts of thesouth, but what I was 141 hearing seemed to be moreanother language thansimply accented Cajun, perhaps it was veryold. English. I thought that, like who became Hodgson (1972: 120-123) saysthat the early settlers known as "billies" wereUlstermen (Scotch-IrishPresbyterians) One whom James I of England hadestablished in Ireland in1610. migrated to the hundred years later a vastnumber of these people New World to escape the povertyand persecution that they were 125) goes on to state suffering in Ireland. Hodgson (ibid. p. generations that "They sought isolationin the highlands, and for that cherished stern independenceand patterns of speech and song speaking of were old beforeShakespeare."Although Hodgson is most the Appalachian mountaineers,MacLeish (1968:666) says that Ozarkers migrated from theAppalachians in the early1800s. youngster Perhaps what I had heardand been fascinated by as a was, indeed, atotally different English. easy-to- Because of its recent andtherefore comparatively its culturally trace history(less than 150 years) and because dicta- varied populations have allchosen similar lifestyles as could well be a ted by the remoteness ofthe area, the South Fork Of the four valuable model for isolatedmountain populations. populations studied for thisthesis, the SheepeaterShoshoni, all but the the Nez Perce, theChinese, and the Euro-American, Until further Chinese are characteristicmountaineer peoples. Chinese studies are done--it is tobe hoped preferably by this scholars--on the early Chineseimmigrants to this country, South Fork study must regard theChinese of Warren and the example of a region not as classicalmountaineers, but as an population utilizing the area asa haven in timesof stress. of population in The same would seem tobe true of the influx the area during thedepression. Significantly, however, theSheepeater Shoshoni, a portion Euro-American ranchers all of the Nez Perce, andthe established characteristics of fit easily within thegeneral, overall 142 mountaineers the world over and have beenregarded with equal disdain by the major portions of their owncultural and/or racial groups. In reading of various mountain culturesaround the world, a number of characteristic similarities appear. These characteristics are either stated or alluded to indescriptions of the people by people who have traveled amongand written about such diverse populations as: the Montagnards of Viet Nam(Sochurek 1968:443-487); the Appalachian Mountaineers(Hodgson 1972 :118 - 146); the Highlanders of Scotland (MacLeish1968:398-435); the Naga of India (Ripley1955:247-264); the Ozarkers (Edwards 1970:656-689); and the Kirghiz (Shor and Shor1950:673-706). Among these characteristics are strengthof body and character, pride, poverty (as compared to the standardsof the outside major populations), suspicion, mistrust, and/or disdain for"lowland-

ers" or outsiders, independence,self-sufficiency, friendli- ness, extreme familysolidarity, and a strong desire thatthe childrengrow up, not only withthese values intact but that they be willing and able to remainwithin the community and to pass these values on tofuture generations. These characteristics are observed to be true of theSouth Fork populations as

well. Still, mountain populations havetraditionally been viewed by historians, anthropologists, andarchaeologists as marginal peoples, barely clinging to lives ofsomehow enforced isolation. It seems that these learned opinionshave come from nothing more than popular tradition which"scholars" have, until recently, done little or nothing to investigatein order to either refute people for moun- or validate. The popular attitudes of lowland taineers have long been those of scornand derision. Walker (1968:14) describes this phenomenon among theNez Perce:

The nipeheme andsaqgnma bands in the Salmon River country are reputed tohave relied predominantly on a fish and rootdiet well into the historic period, havinglittle contact with 143

those bands around them that maintained large herds of horses. These two bands, particularly the latter, were located in deep canyon areas with insufficient pasture resources to develop the herds so characteristic of so many bands at the time of contact. Although there were economic differences of social importance within the nipehgme and the saqgnma bands, these were less significant than the economic differences between those bands that developed a horse culture and those that did not. By the time of contact such nonhorse bands were known by the derogatory term engynu tit6qan, roughly equivalent to 'provincials.' On the other hand, those bands that went to the Plains regularly were known as the k'usgynutit6qan, equivalent to 'sophisticated people.' Among the horse bands there were many derogatory stories regarding the contrastive behavior of the provincial bands, such as their eating dogs and preferring huckleberries rolled in salmon fat to buffalo flanks. How similar to jokes among lowland white Americans of"hillbillies" eating possum and turnip greens! Among the Shoshoni as well as among the Nez Perce, buffalo hunting was a mark of sophistication. Liljeblad (1957:56) states that "As a mode of expression, 'buffalo eaters'became synonymous with 'well-to-do people'; a'buffalo eater' would rank socially above a 'salmon eater'..."Both Liljeblad (1957: 93) and Steward (1938:186,187) state that the mounted Shoshoni and later Fort Hall Shoshoni referred to the Sheepeater or Mountain Shoshoni as "salmon eaters" as well as "Sheepeaters." Swanson (1972:11) notes that the mountain people, tukudeka, "remained unmounted" and that they lived year round inthe

mountains. Liljeblad (1957:95) says that the Sheepeaters were characteristically a "rather conservative people" who weremocked and disapproved of by other Shoshoni for theirslow "sing-song" speech and their tradition of cross-cousin marriage. Again how similar to the lowland white Americans' mockeryof the "hillbilly drawl" and disdain for the very close interweavingof families among whom intermarriage is ofteninevitable! 1244

people been Nor have the ensuingEuro-American backcountry living exempt from these attitudes. Living without electricity, impos- under conditions which makeroad travel to the outside sible from October to June orJuly, being periodically unable "weathered in" (weather conditionssuch that planes are isolated physi- to fly), being contentand satisfied with one's children cal setting and one'sbusiness within it, raising by out- within these conditions areall viewed condescendingly simply siders as "quaint,""dangerous," "foolhardy," or impossible. Ethnocentricity is basic to allhuman groups. Pitifully, "different" is at its core generallylies the premise that equation in all human socie- "wrong." This is regarded as an society are vastly out- ties. Since mountain dwellers in any the mountain- numbered by the majority ofthe society, and since the majority, the eer lifestyle isdistinctly different from above premise is applied. to It is a sad fact thatscholars tend overwhelmingly predecessors often follow in the footstepsof their established which may without carefully andopenmindedly checking "facts" reason or have been unwittingly erroneous,or which may--for one general to another--have changed. Furthermore, scholars tend in harboring, like be members of the world'smajority populations, deeply others of their culture, age,and time, subtle but be nothing ingrained opinions ofphenomena which may actually cultural bias masquera- more than apervasive and longstanding accepted hypothesis ding as "fact."Perhaps in this way, the is merely marginal among scholarsthat high mountain country have been forced by country into whichcertain populations must established. certain other populationshas become so firmly could ever It is very unlikelythat a true "melting-pot" that is, that a totallyassi- occur in onenational population; diverse back- milated nation ofindividuals with culturally unprecedented grounds could prevail. This country has made an 124.5

and unsuccessful attempt to that end for over 300 years and continues generation after generation to struggle with the issue. The purpose of this paper has been to show that aspecific mountain area was, indeed, an area of long and preferredhuman occupancy. If this is accepted, perhaps other "marginal" areas will be looked at again with the premise that whilethey may have seemed merely marginal to most, they were in fact chosen areas representing comfort, security, and prosperity to some. 146

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aikens, C. Melvin 1978 The far west. In Ancient Native Americans, edited by Jesse D. Jennings, pp.131-182. W.H. Freeman and Company, SanFrancisco. Allen, William Alonzo. 1913The Sheepeaters. Shakespeare Press, New York. Ames, Kenneth, and James P.Green n.d. Hatwai: Lower Clearwater prehistory. Unpublished manuscript, BoiseState University. Ames, Kenneth M., and Alan C.Marshall 1980 Villages, demography, andsubsistence intensification on the southernColumbia Plateau. North American Archaeologist 2 (1):25-52. Anastasio, Angelo 1972 The southern plateau; anecological analysis of intergroup relations. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 6(2):109-229. Antevs, Ernst 1955Geologic-climatic dating in the west. American Antiquity 20 (4):317-335. Bailey, Robert G. 1935River of No Return. Bailey-Blake Printing Co. Lewiston, Idaho. Bense, Judith Ann effect of the 1972The Cascade Phase: a study in the altithermal on a cultural system. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Washington StateUniversity. Berry, Don Harper Bros. New York. 1961A Majority of Scoundrels. Boreson, Keo 1976 Rock art of the PacificNorthwest. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes10 (1):90-146.

at 10-VY-165 1979Archaeological test excavations South Fork Salmon Riversatellite facility, Valley Country, Idaho. University of Idaho Anthropological Research ManuscriptSeries No. 57. Brauner, David Ray the Alpowa locality. 1976Alpowa: the culture history of Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Washington State University. 147

Brown, Col. W.C. 1926The Sheepeater campaign. In The Sheepeater Indian Campaign. pp. 1-29. Idaho County Free Press, Grangeville, Idaho. 1968. Butler, B.R. 1962Contributions to the prehistory ofthe Columbia Plateau. Occasional Papers of the IdahoState College Museum, No. 9.

. With R.J. Fitzwater 1965A Further Notion of the Clovissite at Big Camas Prairie, South Central Idaho. Tebiwa 8(1):38-40.

1970 A report on the 1967-69archaeological survey of the National Reactor TestingStation, Idaho. Tebiwa 13 (1):58-75.

1978 A Guide To Understanding IdahoArchaeology. Idaho State Historic Preservation Office,Boise, Idaho. Caldwell, Warren W., and Oscar L.Mallory 1967Hell's Canyon archaeology. Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys Publications inSalvage Archaeology No. 6. Lincoln, Nebraska. Carrey, John 1968 Mocassin tracks of the Sheepeaters. In The Sheepeater Campaign. Idaho County Free Press,Grangeville, Idaho.

. With Cort Conley 1980 The Middle Fork and the SheepeaterWar. Backeddy Books. Cambridge, Idaho. Chalfant, Stuart, and Verne F. Ray New York 1974 Nez Perce Indians. Garland Publishing Co. and London. Chapman, Lois Ms. on file, n.d. A history of Old Landmark rangerdistrict. Cascade Ranger District Officeof the Boise National Forest, Cascade, Idaho. Cressman, L.S. 1977Prehistory of the Far West;Homes of Vanished People. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Daubenmire, R.F. The 1943Vegetation zonation on theRocky Mountains. Botanical Review. 9 (6):325-393. Edwards, Mike W. National Geographic 1970 Through Ozark hills and hollows. 138 (5):656-689. 148

Elias, Thomas S. Van Nostrand 1980 The Complete Trees of NorthAmerica. Reinhold Co., New York. Elsensohn, Sr. M. Alfreda, OSB 1970 Idaho Chinese Lore. Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho.

Caldwell, Idaho. 1979Polly Bemis. Caxton Printers Ltd., Fisher, Vardis 1938 The Idaho Encyclopedia. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. Gallagher, Joseph G. 1979The archeology [sic] of theSheepeater Battleground and Redfish overhang sites: settlement model for central Idaho. Report No. 5, USDA-ForestService, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. Goss, James A. Utaztekan prehistory. 1968Cultural-historical inference from Utaztekan Prehistory No. 22;Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum. Green, James P. proposed South Fork Salmon 1976Cultural resource input, River planning unit, Payetteand Boise National Forests. Report on file, Boise NationalForest, Boise, Idaho. Haines, Francis Plateau. 1955 The Nez Perces Tribesmen of the Columbia University of Oklahoma Press. Norman.

and Plateau. G.P. Putnam's 1970 Indians of the Great Basin Sons. New York. Harrison, Richard R. Archaeological 1971 The final reportof the 1971 Salmon River survey. A report prepared forthe USDA-Forest Service. Idaho State UniversityMuseum, Pocatello, Idaho. Hill, Richard D. 1973 lower Salmon Riverarchaeologi- 1974Final report on the the Idaho Bureau cal excavations. A report prepared for Museum, of Land Management. Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho. Clark, Vol.II. History of the Expeditionof Captains Lewis and and A.H. Inskeep and J. Maxwell,New York. and Bradford Inskeep, Philadelphia. 1814; reprint ed., A.C. McClurg and Co., Chicago. 1903. 149

Hodgson, Bryan 1972Appalachia: mountain voices; mountain days. National Geographic 142(1):118-146. Irving, Washington 1955 Adventures of CaptainBonneville. Klickitat Edition. Binfords and Mort. Portland, Oregon. Keeler, Robert W. 1970 An upland hunting camp on theNorth Fork of the Clear- water River, north-central Idaho. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No.30. Pocatello, Idaho. Kehoe, Thomas F., and Bruce A.McCorquodale 1961The Avonlea point--horizon markerfor the northwestern plains. Plains Anthropologist 6(13):179-188. Knudson, Ruthann 1982A cultural resource reconnaissancein the Middle Fork Salmon River Basin, Idaho 1978. Cultural Resource Report No. 7. USDA-Forest Service, IntermountainRegion, Ogden, Utah. Leonhardy, Frank G., and David G.Rice 1970 Culture typology for thelower Snake River region. Northwest Anthropological ResearchNotes 4 (1):1-29. Liljeblad, Dr. Sven 1957 Indian Peoples in Idaho. Ms. on file, Idaho State University. MacLeish, Kenneth 1968 The Highlands, stronghold ofScottish Gaeldom. National Geographic 133(3) 398-435. Malouf, Carling 1961 The tipi rings of the high plains. American Antiquity 26 (3):381-389. Murphy, Robert F., and Yolanda Anthropolo- 1960 Shoshone-Bannock subsistence andsociety. gical Records 16(7):293-338. Nelson, Charles M. 1969The Sunset Creek Site(45-KT-28) and its place in plateau prehistory. Report of investigations No.47. Washington State UniversityLaboratory of Anthropology, Pullman, Washington. Nesbit, Paul Edward petroglyphs 1968 Stylistic locales andethnographic groups: of the lower Snake River. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No.23.

Parker, Aaron F. 1968 Forgotten tragedies of anIndian war. In Sheepeater Grangeville. Indian Campaign. Idaho County Free Press, 150

Pavesic, Max G. the 1978 Archaeological overviewof the Middle Fork of Salmon River corridor, Idahoprimitive area. Archaeo- logical Reports No. 3 BoiseState University. Sprague . With Mark G. Plew and Roderick 1979A bibliography of Idahoarchaeology, 1889-1976. (2):part 2. Northwest AnthropologicalResearch Notes 13 Peterson, Roger Tory Houghton Mifflin 1961A Field Guide to WesternBirds. Company, Boston. Random House Dictionary ofthe English Language 1971 e., Random House,New York. Ranere, Anthony J. cultural continuity in 1970 Prehistoric environments and the western great basin. Tebiwa 13 (2):52-72.

from Meadow Canyon, eastern 1971Stratigraphy and stone tools 4, Occasional Papers of the Idaho. Birch Creek Papers No. Idaho State UniversityMuseum No. 27. Ray, Verne F. Plateau of Northwestern 1939 Cultural Relations in the Webb Hodge America. Publications of the Frederick Anniversary Publication Fund,Vol. III. Los Angeles. Richards, Monte salmon fishery of the South 1963Management of the Chinook Fork Salmon River drainage. Idaho Wildlife Review. 16 (1):3-7. Ripley, S. Dillon 1955 Roaming India'sNaga hills. National Geographic 107 (2):247-264. Rosillon, Mary P. of the 1981 An overview of historyin the drainage basin Middle Fork of the SalmonRiver. Report No. 6 USDA- Forest Service. Intermountain Region. Sadek-Kooros of Jaguar cave. Tebiwa 1972The sediments and fauna 15 (1):1-20. Schell, Frank P. A Chronology of the Post 1973Ghost Towns and LiveOnes: Office Department in Idaho,1861-1973. College of Southern Idaho, Twin Falls.

Shawley, Stephen D. University of IdahoAnthropological 1977 Nez Perce trails. Research Manuscript SeriesNo. 44. 151 Shor, Frank and Jean 1950 We took the high road to Afghanistan. National Geographic XCVIII (5):673-706. Sochurek, Howard 1968 Viet Nam's Montagnards; caught in the jaws of a war. National Geographic 133 (4):443-487 Spinden, Herbert J. 1908The Nez Perce Indians. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association Vol.II, No. 3. Steward, Julian H. 1938Basin-plateau aboriginal sociopolitical groups. Smithsonian Institute Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 120:pp. 1-346. U.S. Government Printing Office. Swanson, E.H. Jr., and Alan L. Bryan 1964aBirch Creek papers no. 1: an archaeological reconnaissance in the Birch Creek Valley of eastern Idaho. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No. 13.

. With B.R. Butler, and R. Bonnichsen 1964bBirch Creek papers no. 2: Natural and cultural stratigraphy in the Birch Creek Valley of eastern Idaho. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State Museum No. 14. With Paul G. Sneed 1966 Birch Creek papers no. 3: the archaeology of the Shoup rockshelters in east central Idaho. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No. 17.

1970 Languages and Cultures of Western North America: Essays in Honor of Sven S. Liljeblad. Idaho State University Press, Pocatello, Idaho.

1972 Birch Creek: Human Ecology in the Northern Rocky Mountains 9,000 B.C. - A.D. 1850. Idaho State University Press, Pocatello, Idaho.

1974 Summary report for the Salmon district survey of the Idaho Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho. Swisher, Lawrence A. 1972The 1972 Salmon River Archaeological Survey Final Report. A report prepared for the USDA-Forest Service. Idaho State University Museum, Pocatello, Idaho. Taylor, Walter W. 1961Archaeology and languages in western north America. American Antiquity 27 (1):77-81. 152

Tentchoff, Dorice 1979 Louisiana Cajuns: the management of a stygmatized identity. Ms. on file, Dr. Tentchoff, Departmentof Anthropology, Oregon State University. Trenhom, Virginia, and Maurine Carley 1964 The Shoshones: Sentinels of the Rockies. University Of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Trull, Fern Coble 1946 The history of the Chinese in Idahofrom 1864 to 1910. Unpublished Master's thesis, Departmentof History, University of Oregon. Walker, Deward E. Jr. 1968Conflict and Schism in Nez PerceAcculturation: A Study of Religion and Politics. Washington State University Press, Pullman. Warren, Claude N., Kent S. Wilkinson, and MaxG. Pavesic 1971The midvale comples. Tebiwa 14 (2):39-71. Wells, Merle W. 1962 Rush to Idaho. Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology No. 19. pp. 1-57Moscow, Idaho. Wheat, Carl I. 1963 1540-1861 Mapping the Transmississippi West, vol.V: From the Civil War to the Geological Survey. The Institute of Historical Cartography, SanFrancisco. Willey, Gordon Randolph 1966 An Introduction to American Archaeology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Winick, Charles 1975 Dictionary of Anthropology. Littlefield, Adams, and Co., Totowa, New Jersey. Wylie, Jerry, and Susan Ketchum 1980 A summary of the U.S. ForestService cultural resource activities in south and central Idaho. A report for the USDA-Forest Service, IntermountainRegion, U.S. government Printing Office.

. With Tom Scott and Joe Gallagher 1982 Test excavations in the River of NoReturn wilderness. The Thunderbird: Archaeological News of the Northwest 12 (6):1-3. 153

( Special Documents )

Cockrell Report on the Post Office Department,1888. U. S. Government Printing Office. Comfort, Idaho, original Post Office records. Idaho State Library, Boise, Idaho, file no. MS 75. Cook, Warren E. 1908 Report on proposed administrative site. Prepared for USDA-Forest Service. Original on file at Forest Service offices, McCall, Idaho. Deeds Record Books Nos. 1 and 3/4. On file at Idaho County Courthouba, Grangeville, Idaho. Federal Power Commission; letter to Mr. Spryof the Unity Gold Mines Co., April 10, 1923. Original on file at the Idaho State Offices of the Bureau of LandManagement, Boise, Idaho. Hall, Idaho, original Post Office records. Idaho State Library, Boise, Idaho, file no. MS 75. Homestead Entry Survey Field Notes. On file at the Idaho State Offices of the Bureau of Land Management,Boise, Idaho. Laing, David, Forest Supervisor. 1906 Report on agricultural settlement. Report prepared for USDA-Forest Service. Original on file at Forest Service offices, McCall, Idaho. Quartz Claim Record Books,Washington Mining District, Idaho County, Idaho Territory. On file at Idaho County Courthouse, Grangeville, Idaho. Ranere, Tony 1971 Idaho State University MuseumArchaeological Survey Reports. Reports are for sites: 10-IH-13; 10-IH-313; 10-IH-314; 10-IH-315; 10-IH-350; 10-IH-351;10-IH-352 in Idaho County near the confluenceof the South Fork of the Salmon River with the MainSalmon River. Reports on file at theUniversity of Idaho, Moscow. Swanson and Rice 1958 Idaho State University MuseumArchaeological Survey Reports. Reports are for sites: 10-IH-10; 10-IH-13; 10-IH-14; 10-IH-16; 10-IH-17 in Idaho County nearthe confluence of the South Fork of theSalmon River with the Main Salmon River. Reports on file at the University of Idaho, Moscow. 154

( Interviews )

Bragg, Jim. Retired cowboy; Hettinger Ranch,(via) Warren, Idaho. Interview 9-2-1980. Bradshaw, Gary. Postmaster, Main Post Office,Boise, Idaho. Interview 8-14-1980. Edmunson, Mary N. Retired nurse, Council, Idaho. Interview 11-6,7,8-1979. Hitchcock, Pearl Willey. Retired rancher, packer, Emmett, Idaho. Interview 8-12-1979. Lawrence, John. Mountaineer, South Fork,(via) Warren, Idaho. Interview 9-3-1980. Maley, Louise. Housewife, Boise, Idaho. Interview September 1979. Mann, Vic. High school wrestling coach,Boise, Idaho. Interview 8-22-1980. Salmon, Idaho. Powers, F. E. Retired Forest Service Supervisor, Interview 11-12-1979. Rebillet, L. G.Rancher, packer, outfitter,(currently) Boise, Idaho. Personal communications ca.1969. Thompson, E. L. Retired Forest Service Supervisor. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Interview 12-10-1979. Simpson, Val. Forest Service Supervisor,Cascade, Idaho. Interview September 1980 155

( Naps )

Map of Idaho and Wyoming 1897 Century Atlas. Century Co., New York. Cram, George F. 1900 May of Idaho. Published by George Cram, Chicago, Illinois. Original copy on file in Boise Public Library, Boise, Idaho. Hogg, T. C. 1981 Cultural Regions of the Greater Northwest. Unpublished original map on file at theDepartment of Anthropology, Oregon State University. Sketch Map of Middle Idaho 1879 Purportedly made by troops duringSheepeater Campaign. Loose copy provided with The SheepeaterIndian Campaign, Idaho County Free Press, Grangeville,Idaho, 1968. Also published in the Early Idaho Atlas,Binford and Mort, Portland, Oregon 1972, pp. 50,51. "Early Day Adventures in Round ValleyArea Recalled by Descendants of Last Century Gem StateResidents." Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho, April29, 1963, sec. 2, p. 15, col. 2. "Hanged for Murder." Idaho County Free Press, Grangeville, Idaho, June 1886, vol. 1 no. 1. OUT OF THE PAST.... Mail Carriers. Central Idaho Star News, Cascade, Idaho, January 12,1962. APPENDIX 156

GLOSSARY

BACKCOUNTRY The geographical areas of Idaho nowdesignated as "Wilderness Areas" andthe vast and equally rugged areas bordering them. The entirety of the South and Middle Fork areas, and the countryin between is backcountry. BAR A generally flat area of appreciablesize suitable for sowing and/or building, whichis on a level with the river. BENCH A generally flat area of appreciablesize suitable for sowing and/or building, whichis generally located at varying distancesabove the level of the river.

CULTURE "All that which is non-biological andsocially transmitted in a society, including artistic, social, ideological, and religiouspatterns of behavior and the techniques for masteringthe environment." (Winick 1975:144) DOWN-RIVER In the direction of the river's mouth;in the case of the South Fork, north. FLAT A generally flat area of appreciablesize suitable for sowing and/or building, which isgenerally on a level with the river.

FLATLANDER A person who is culturally orientedto areas outside the mountains, especially thetowns and cities, although people from therural areas in the non-mountainous areas are alsogenerally included. This is usually a derogatory or teasing term. HILLBILLY A term used by backcountry people todefine themselves as a groupand/or as individuals. This is complimentary when used by and amongbackcountry people. IN The state of being, for whateverperiod of time, in the backcountry, or on theriver. Example: "I'm going back in to the rivertomorrow" "He's been back in the country ayear." "John went in two days ago." 157

LOCALITY "...that space occupied continuously orperio- dically by a local group of people, acommunity. Further, archaeologically it is ageographical space small enough topermit the working assumption of complete culturalhomogeneity at any given time." (Brauner 1976:20 after Willey and Phillips 1958:18). ON THE RIVER The location of a place orobject, or the physical state of being for a person oranimal in a setting adjacent to eitherbank of the specified river (South Fork, forexample). Example: "That place was located on theriver about a quarter mile down from our place." "They've been on the river 50years." If the river is a navigable onesuch as the Main Salmon or the Middle Fork,it could mean that a person is out in a boat. going away from OUT The state of being away from, or the river in the direction of"civilization." The term is a relative one,like "in." From the South Fork, both Warren and McCall are"out," but from McCall or Boise, bothWarren and the South Fork are "in." PLACE An area settled by or lived onby an individual which is not large enough ordoes not have a large enough operation to betermed a ranch. The term "place" may be applied to aranch, but the term "ranch" is not appliedto a place. lived deep SHEEPEATER 1. The Tukudeka Shoshoni people who in the mountainous areas bypreference and who formed a culturally distinct group. used by the 2. The name or term erroneously majority of Idahoans, and manyhistorians, to mean simply "culturallyindistinct renegade Indians who 'hidout' in the backcountry." to spend the winter TO WINTER A backcountry verb meaning and usually used with"in" or "out." river this Example: "Are you wintering in on the year?" "They always winter out in Boise." Spring, summer, and fall havenot become verbs. river's headwaters; in UP-RIVER In the direction of the the case of the South Fork,south.